Business Before Questions

Committee of Selection

Ordered,
That Sir David Evennett be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Nigel Huddleston be added.—(Jacob Young.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Justice

The Secretary of State was asked—

Prisons: Working Environments and Violence at Work

Gordon Henderson: What steps his Department is taking to help (a) create safer working environments in prisons and (b) support prison staff who are victims of violence at work.

Brandon Lewis: We are committed to making prisons a safe place in which to work and providing prison officers with the right support, training and tools to empower them to do their jobs. Our prison officers are the hidden heroes of the criminal justice system; they do great work, keeping the public safe every single day.

Gordon Henderson: I am grateful for that answer from my right hon. Friend, and I hope he would acknowledge that prison officers work in a dangerous and violent environment. I urge him to take this opportunity to acknowledge also that expecting them to work in such a violent environment until they are 68 is wholly unacceptable. Will he commit to an urgent review of how the pension age for prison officers can be reduced so that it reflects that of other public sector workers in similar challenging environments, such as police officers and firefighters, who are able to retire at 60?

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate the challenge that my hon. Friend fairly makes, and I would say a couple of things on that. First, anybody who is violent towards staff will face the full consequences of their actions and should be properly, effectively and swiftly dealt with—we will ensure that they are. On the age issue, all prison officers who joined the service after April 2001 go through and have to pass an annual fitness test. Obviously, that applies to prison officers over the age of 65, and even some of the people who have applied for those roles at that age range have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. The service, and  the prisoners themselves, can benefit from people with that level of experience, who play an important part as key members of the team.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his response. It is not just the prison officers who feel the pain of the attacks and what happens to them—the families do, too. What is being done to help the families, not only of those who are suffering physically, but of those who are perhaps suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder coming out of prisons?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, as he often does in this House; we focus on the frontline service personnel, such as our brilliant prison officers, but their families and friends pick up on this, as they are the people who work with them and are in their social lives and family lives. We do provide post-incident support through our care teams, trauma risk management teams and the work associated with occupational health. Obviously, there is also counselling for staff who are impacted by violence in the workplace. The best way we can crack down on this is by being very clear that that kind of behaviour simply will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed.

Steve Reed: Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, may I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and indeed welcome his colleagues on the Government Front Bench?
Uncontrolled violence in prisons is a key reason officers leave their jobs nearly as quickly as Tory Chancellors. One in four prison officers now quit their job within a year of starting, which damages the supervision of prisoners, leaving victims’ families sickened to see Stephen Lawrence’s killer bragging about using a mobile phone in his cell and the murderer Sean Mercer running a drugs empire from behind bars. When will the Government get back control of our prisons?

Brandon Lewis: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks in welcoming our team to our places. I am sure that there will be a range of issues on which, across this Dispatch Box and away from it, we will be able to work together for the benefit of the safety of the public. Obviously, I also look forward to our exchanges here at the Dispatch Box.
We know that there is a link between staffing levels and prison violence, which is why we are continuing to strengthen the frontline. We have seen an increase in the number of prison officers from under 18,000 to almost 22,000; we have some 3,770 more full-time officers. He has also highlighted a couple of incidents. I agree that they are completely unacceptable, which is why I have initiated a review to ensure that those kinds of situations cannot happen again. People need to understand that if they are in prison, they are there for a reason: to keep the public safe. We will make sure that they are.

Lindsay Hoyle: We might need to speed up; if we take eight minutes on one question, it is going to take time.

Violence Against Women and Girls: Criminal Justice System Reform

Kate Osborne: What steps his Department is taking to reform the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

Helen Hayes: What steps his Department is taking to reform the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

Rachel Maclean: Since we published the end-to-end rape review, rape convictions have increased by 77% in the past year, and they are up by 30% on pre-pandemic levels. But there is much more to do, which is why, among other measures, we are more than quadrupling funding for victim support, to £192 million, and investing in increasing the number of independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers to 1,000 by 2024-25.

Kate Osborne: Crime is up, charges are down, criminals are getting off and victims are being let down—and that is just in the Met police. Yesterday, we saw the alarming weight of evidence from the Casey report, identifying structural misogyny, racism and homophobia in the Met, with thousands of serving police officers getting away with breaking the law. That cannot be a problem for the Met alone but goes across police forces. That culture explains the failures in our wider justice system, where sexism, racism and homophobia are unrecognised by police officers, and victims are not believed or supported. Unless those issues are addressed, we will never change the appalling low charge and conviction rates for rape and sexual assault, so will the Secretary of State—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry, but I just said that we need to make progress. We cannot read speeches out; there has to be a question.

Kate Osborne: Will the Secretary of State look into whether this culture is symptomatic across police forces and take steps to ensure that victims get the justice that they deserve?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks; I have two observations on what she said. First, she talks about the Met police. The Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is the police and crime commissioner for the London police forces. I also ask her to direct her questions to the Home Office, which leads on these matters. Of course, we will play our part, which is why we are rolling out all the measures in the Crown courts to protect victims of sexual assault and rape, and there is a lot more to do.

Helen Hayes: Under this Conservative Government, people can be fined for cycling on the pavement but not for following a girl walking home from school. The problem is so widespread that research by Plan International revealed that one third of all schoolgirls have received unwanted sexual attention in their school uniform. For so many women, a lifetime of feeling unsafe on our streets starts in childhood. The Government continue to ignore the problem. Does the Minister agree that the law must be changed to criminalise street harassment?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady, but I strongly disagree with her remark that we are ignoring the problem. As she will know from Home Office questions, in which we have had many exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes about that issue, the Home Office is leading on a review of the laws relating to street harassment—not to mention the significant amounts of funding that we have put in to local councils all over the country to keep women and girls safe at night.

Richard Holden: Under the Ministry of Justice’s masterplan to increase the number of approved premises available, high-risk and very high-risk offenders could be located at Highfield House in Consett right in the centre of my local town, in a residential area near a lot of local youth facilities. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that, because it is quite inappropriate for the location that has been suggested?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his constituents’ concerns to the House and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss that in detail.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Ellie Reeves.

Ellie Reeves: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their place.
Under the Tories, we have seen rape prosecutions reach record lows, court backlogs reach record highs and victims waiting more than three years for justice, yet in his conference speech, the Justice Secretary did not announce any tangible ways to change that. Labour, on the other hand, would introduce specialist rape courts to drive up prosecutions, reduce delays and fast-track cases through the system. Does that not show that the Tories have run out of ideas and that it is only under Labour that the public can again have confidence in our criminal justice system?

Rachel Maclean: It is lovely to have these exchanges across the Dispatch Boxes with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that we will have more of them, because it is in all our interests that we improve the criminal justice system and the response to rape. That is why, as she well knows, the work of the rape review is vital, and we have seen police referrals, Crown Prosecution Service charges and Crown court receipts increasing as a result of that vital work, driven by our law enforcement partners and the CPS. I draw her attention to two specific measures that we have introduced to assist: we have ended the criminal Bar strike, thanks to the efforts of the Lord Chancellor; and we have rolled out section 28 pre-recorded evidence to all Crown courts in the country to spare rape victims the trauma of live cross-questioning.

Offenders: Employment after Release from Prison

Jack Lopresti: What steps his Department is taking to help offenders find employment following their release from prison.

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps his Department is taking to help offenders find employment following their release from prison.

David Rutley: What steps his Department is taking to help offenders find employment following their release from prison.

Brandon Lewis: Getting prisoners into employment helps not only to fill the 1.25 million vacancies that businesses have right now, but to drive down reoffending. To achieve that, we are building stronger links with employers and suppliers and are offering more offenders the chance to work in prison, on release on temporary licence, and on release from prison.

Jack Lopresti: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that through the apprenticeships programme that his Department is running, prison leavers will be given the opportunity to achieve qualifications that will help them into new jobs and careers and help them to turn their back on crime?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to get more prisoners the skills and qualifications that they need to get into employment and have the chance to contribute to society, which cuts crime and grows the economy. I am delighted that the first apprentices have now started work. We are planning a roundtable to encourage a wide range of employers, particularly in the UK hospitality and construction industries, where there is a lot more that we can do.

Stephen Metcalfe: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to building links with employers to ensure that prison leavers go into sustainable employment. Will he assure me and the House that his Department will support that ambition with appropriate funding?

Brandon Lewis: Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are investing in new roles, such as prison employment leads and a head of education, skills and work, to give our prisoners the support that they need to get into jobs. We are also funding new infrastructure such as employment hubs. This investment will cut crime and help prisoners to get work-ready, which will mean a better, safer society and a healthier community.

David Rutley: Having visited HMP Thorn Cross recently while I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I have seen the great work that Timpson and TalkTalk, among others, are doing to prepare offenders for the world of work. At a meeting in Macclesfield on Friday, Sodexo also demonstrated its clear commitment to the task. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more such partnerships, as well as clear pathways of support on leaving prison, including access to relevant benefits, to ensure that more prison leavers land better on their own two feet?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and gives some key examples. The employability innovation fund announced in our prisons strategy White Paper will help prisoners to build more partnerships with employers like those at HMP Thorn Cross. I have seen other organisations and initiatives such as twinning projects that are looking into different things and are even using sports such as football to prepare prisoners for leaving prison and contributing positively to their  community and future life. Those are great projects, and my hon. Friend gives a good example of a good prison doing great work.

Dan Jarvis: One in three prisoners are released on a Friday, but many support services are closed over the weekend, which makes the transition and route into employment more complicated. It is welcome that the Government have said that they want to end Friday releases. Will the Secretary of State update the House on when that will happen?

Brandon Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear and correct observation about timing. A private Member’s Bill on the subject—the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill—will come before the House in the next few weeks, and we are looking at it very carefully.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Liz Saville Roberts.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd.
Securing employment for offenders is vital to rehabilitation, and the role of experienced probation officers is key to success. Earlier this month, I visited the Caernarfon office of the north Wales probation delivery unit and learned that the region has 27 vacancies in a present workforce of 200. Does the Secretary of State recognise the risk to the effectiveness of rehabilitation and to public safety as a result of the loss of experienced probation staff and increased workloads? Will he commit to no further cuts in probation?

Brandon Lewis: I recognise the challenge across prisons and probation. Making sure that we have the right teams, with staff who have the right experience to work with people, is important in preparing people and avoiding reoffending, which is so important to the safety of our communities. I am very focused on the issue. We are recruiting people across His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service at the moment. I look forward to making sure that we can support people across the country, and I look forward to visiting Wales to see that for myself.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Steve Reed: The probation service is not finding jobs for prisoners, because understaffing is at crisis point: the service now faces a shortage of nearly 1,700 officers, according to the MOJ’s own figures. That allows serious offenders such as Katie Piper’s acid attacker to evade monitoring and escape abroad. Will the Secretary of State apologise to victims, including Katie Piper, for letting the probation service get so run down that it can no longer control offenders?

Brandon Lewis: I appreciate that for political reasons the hon. Gentleman will want to do the probation service down. I have to say that I think our probation officers across the country work hard every day, not only to keep communities safe but to help prisoners to rehabilitate and get into communities.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight situations that are not acceptable. The example of Katie Piper is a current one, and it is not acceptable. As Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, I am determined to  do everything I can, working with my ministerial team and the brilliant teams across probation, to ensure that such situations do not happen in future. It is not acceptable, and it should not have happened.

Rwanda Partnership: Legal Compatibility

Marion Fellows: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda with (a) domestic law and (b) the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.

Chris Law: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda with (a) domestic law and (b) the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.

Owen Thompson: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda with (a) domestic law and (b) the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.

Kirsten Oswald: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda with (a) domestic law and (b) the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.

Richard Thomson: Whether he has had recent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on the compatibility of the migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda with (a) domestic law and (b) the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.

Gareth Johnson: The Secretary of State works closely, and has regular discussions, with the Home Secretary and other members of the Cabinet on tackling illegal migration. The migration and economic development partnership is an essential part of the Government’s strategy to improve the fairness and efficacy of the United Kingdom’s immigration system. Its aim is to deter illegal entry to the UK, break the business model of people smugglers, and remove from the UK those who have no right to be here. There are ongoing legal challenges to the partnership, but the Government remain confident that it is fully compliant with national and international law.

Marion Fellows: I thank the Minister for his answer, and welcome him to his place—for the time being.
The United Nations refugee convention prohibits refoulement—returning a refugee to a place, including any third country, where they would face persecution. Given that UK Government officials are warning their own Ministers about Rwanda’s appalling human rights record, how can the Minister be confident that this plan is compatible with the convention?

Gareth Johnson: Nothing in the UN convention prevents people from being transferred to a safe country. Rwanda is a safe country. It is a signatory to the convention. It has been praised by the UN for its work on refugees, and it is a good partner to do business with.

Chris Law: Yesterday I returned from Rwanda, where I saw at first hand what some people are now calling Hopeless House, a refurbished orphanage. It is clear that there is zero transparency in respect of the £120 million payment to Rwanda.
Is the Justice Secretary not alarmed by the fact that the world’s largest refugee agency, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, has said that this policy will
“undermine, not promote, the Government’s stated goal of improving protection for those at risk of persecution”,
and, as a result, will send the clearest possible message to international partners that this UK Government are stepping away yet again from their international responsibilities on human rights protections?

Gareth Johnson: What is clear is that the current situation in the channel is deathly. What we need to do is smash the business model of the people smugglers, and ensure that we have a safe and human route for those people who have been transferred to Rwanda. I am confident that we are on track to do that. We are confident of our legal position; no court has deemed our plan to be in any way unlawful.

Owen Thompson: Under the Government’s plans people could be given as little as seven days’ notice of deportation, which is clearly insufficient time for them to seek any legal advice about their removal to Rwanda. Does the Minister agree with the Law Society of England and Wales, which says that anyone subject to a life-changing order must be able to challenge the decision and have their case processed fairly and transparently?

Gareth Johnson: Access to legal advice is, of course, extremely important to anyone seeking asylum, which is why legal assistance is available to all asylum claimants. For example, 30 minutes of telephone legal advice and access to legal aid are available to people who claim asylum in this country.

Kirsten Oswald: Does the Minister agree with the chief executive of the group Refugee Action that stepping back from the UK’s obligations under the 1951 convention would be
“a blatant breach of the international refugee laws that the UK proudly helped create in the first place”,
and does the new Justice Secretary not feel a responsibility to uphold those international obligations?

Gareth Johnson: Everything we are doing complies with the UN convention, and with the UN convention on human rights. It also complies with national law. I have to say to Scottish National party Members that if they spent a little more time looking at the border between the UK and France and a little less time looking at the border between England and Scotland, they might come up with some viable alternatives.

Richard Thomson: Does the Minister not realise how embarrassingly abject it is to hear the Home Secretary accuse judges in Strasbourg of mission creep, when all they are doing, when it comes to the refugee convention, is interpreting and upholding laws that successive UK Governments have helped to create and have tasked them with upholding?

Gareth Johnson: The hon. Gentleman should have more faith in our judges. I repeat that everything we are doing complies with the UN convention on refugees. It complies as well with UK law and with the European convention on human rights. We are determined to stop what is going on in the channel. This is the fourth question we have heard from the Scottish National party, and not once have we heard a viable alternative proposal from them. Not once.

Lindsay Hoyle: It was five, but don’t worry.

Human Rights

Desmond Swayne: What steps his Department is taking steps to reform the UK human rights framework.

Drew Hendry: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on strengthening human rights in the UK.

Brandon Lewis: The Government stand by their manifesto commitment to update the Human Rights Act 1998. Obviously we want to look at the best way to do this and we are therefore looking again at the Bill of Rights to ensure that we deliver on the Government’s objectives as effectively as possible. And, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) has just outlined, we remain a committed party to the European convention on human rights.

Desmond Swayne: Has the Secretary of State proposals to protect free speech from the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation?

Brandon Lewis: Yes. SLAPPs, as they are referred to, are an abuse of the legal system involving people using legal threats and litigation to silence journalists, campaigners and public bodies. The invasion of Ukraine has heightened concerns about oligarchs abusing these laws and seeking to shut down reporting on their corruption and economic crime. I have met the Justice Minister and Deputy Justice Minister from Ukraine to talk about these issues. I am still determined to introduce legislation to deal with SLAPPs and with freedom of speech more widely.

Drew Hendry: The Minister is crying out for alternatives and advice, but section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires Parliament to ensure the compatibility of UK legislation with the European convention on human rights
“so far as it is possible to do so”.
Why, then, are his Government so intent on removing these protections altogether, when the Act already grants them this obvious flexibility?

Brandon Lewis: I will say two things. First, we want to ensure that we have protection of freedom of speech, as in some areas we are seeing a sad increase in the cancel culture and, importantly, the targeted anti-SLAPP reforms will be able to be deliver through a statutory definition of a SLAPP, with identifying characteristics and cost protections for SLAPPs cases, giving absolute confidence that we are not going to have our legal system abused by ne’er-do-wells and foreign oligarchs trying to suppress the reality of what is happening in situations such as those in Ukraine.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

Anne McLaughlin: To save me raising a point of order later, I want to say in response to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), that we are constantly saying that there should be safe and legal routes. If he looks them up, he will find out what our solutions are to the Rwanda plan.
Professor Aileen McHarg, a professor of public law and human rights at Durham Law School, has told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that she has
“no doubt that…any changes to the Human Rights Act will have knock-on consequences for the scope of devolved competence.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with her? Assuming that he does, does he also accept that this brings any future reforms firmly within the scope of the Sewel convention and that he must therefore seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament?

Brandon Lewis: On the hon. Lady’s opening remark, one thing that was not clear from the questions asked is that we have to ensure we are cracking down on the people who are abusing the system and abusing people through modern slavery and using these tragic life-threatening transports. I make no apology, and nor does anybody in this Government, for trying to do the right thing and crack down on those criminals. I have already said that we are looking at the Bill of Rights, and she will be able to see what we are bringing forward in due course to ensure that we are delivering on our objectives correctly. I repeat that we are a committed party to the European convention on human rights.

Anne McLaughlin: I am not sure that that was an answer to my question. However, assuming that the Secretary of State does agree with Professor Aileen McHarg and that he will consult the Scottish Parliament, if the Scottish Parliament, on behalf of the people of Scotland, says no—as it absolutely will do—to tinkering with our human rights, will he stop tinkering with them, or will he do as many Members right across this House do and dismiss the views of the people of Scotland, thus adding to the very many reasons to say yes to independence and yes to retaining our human rights?

Brandon Lewis: It did not take long to get on to a separatist debate in oral questions today, but as I have said, we are looking at the Bill of Rights. Actually, the Government have consulted all the devolved authorities through the entire process of looking at the Bill of Rights; I know that my predecessor did that as well. I will always look to continue to engage, but we are  committed to delivering on our manifesto pledges and doing the right thing by the people of the United Kingdom—all of the United Kingdom.

Magistrates: Sentencing Powers

Nadia Whittome: Whether it is his policy to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates.

Gareth Johnson: We extended magistrates courts’ sentencing powers from a maximum of six months’ imprisonment to 12 months’ imprisonment for single triable either way offences in April of this year. We estimate this will save up to 1,700 Crown court sitting days a year, and we are keeping the impact of these increased powers under review.

Nadia Whittome: That does not really answer my question, although I thank the Minister for his response. My question is whether he intends to extend the sentencing powers further. Although I obviously share his desire to tackle backlogs and reduce waiting times in the Crown courts, concerns have been raised that further increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates is not the right way to go about this. More defendants may elect to be tried in Crown courts anyway, and expanded powers could result in higher sentences, putting even more pressure on already overcrowded prisons and leading to an increase in Crown court appeals. What consideration has he given to these concerns, and what alternatives are there?

Gareth Johnson: I make no apologies for locking up criminals. I have confidence in the good blend of district judges and justices of the peace in the magistrates courts. We have not seen how the existing increase in powers has been borne out, and we have not seen what the impact will be. We will keep that under review and, until we have that information, I cannot add anything further.

Prisoners: Mental Health

Laurence Robertson: What recent steps his Department has taken to help support the mental health of prisoners.

Rob Butler: The Government published the draft Mental Health Bill in June, and it is now subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. It includes vital reforms to support people with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system by speeding up access to specialist in-patient care and treatment, and it seeks to end the use of prison as a place of safety. The Bill will introduce a new statutory time limit of 28 days for transfers from prison to hospital.

Laurence Robertson: As the Minister is aware, a very high percentage of prisoners have mental health problems. It may also be the case that they end up in prison because of mental health issues. Will the Ministry of Justice work more closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and other people who can provide mental health services to try to stop the spiral?

Rob Butler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am pleased to tell him that the Government are working very closely with the national health service. I will give two quick examples. We know that people leaving custody present a risk of reoffending, so we work with NHS England on a project called RECONNECT, which offers prison leavers targeted support to ensure they go to their appointments in the community to help them on their journey. At primary level, we are rolling out community sentence treatment requirements, including mental health treatment requirements. NHS England is on track to roll them out to every court in England by the end of 2024.

Intimate Image Abuse

Maria Miller: If he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on the potential merits of including the recommendations by the Law Commission on intimate image abuse published in July 2022 in the Online Safety Bill.

Rachel Maclean: The Government welcome the Law Commission’s review, and we are carefully considering its recommendations. As my right hon. Friend will expect, the Lord Chancellor is working very closely with his counterpart in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Maria Miller: The Law Commission’s report says there are gaps in the law on online intimate image abuse that
“mean that harmful, culpable behaviour is not appropriately criminalised and victims are left without effective recourse.”
The Government have a strong record on tackling crime against women, including by introducing the new revenge pornography laws. Rather than just talking about it, can we please act now and either include this in the Online Safety Bill or have a standalone Bill, as the Government recently did to tackle upskirting?

Rachel Maclean: My right hon. Friend has a hugely impressive track record of campaigning on all these issues, to enable women and girls to live safely both online and in the real world. She points to some of our previous work. Of course, technology is always changing, and the Government always keep this under review. It is right that we take time to consider the Law Commission’s recommendations, but I would be happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.

Barry Sheerman: Will the ministerial team go further in protecting women online? Is the Minister aware of the number of women journalists at the BBC who are trolled mercilessly into mental health issues? One dreadful troll was described as being in the Olympic class. These women have never been supported by the BBC, and they have never been given the support they should have been given. Will she join our campaign to secure justice through an independent inquiry into the negligence of the BBC towards its employees?

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that matter to the attention of the House. Of course, the Government have a range of responses to keep all women—not just BBC journalists—living their  lives. It is absolutely right that we put in place the further protections that are contained in the Online Safety Bill. If he has further proposals, I ask him to bring them to me and I will be happy to look at them.

Criminal Court Backlog: Bolton

Yasmin Qureshi: What recent estimate he has made of the size of the backlog of criminal court cases in Bolton.

Gareth Johnson: The outstanding case load in the Crown court in Bolton was 528 at the end of June 2022. We are taking action across the criminal justice system to deliver swifter access to justice for victims and to reduce the backlog of cases. That includes the investment of £477 million into the criminal justice system over the next three financial years to maximise the capacity of the system.

Yasmin Qureshi: As a former prosecutor, a barrister in private practice and a shadow Justice Minister, I find sitting in this House and watching the Government oversee the managed decline of our legal system deeply concerning. In Bolton, as the Minister has said, the backlog stands at 500—more than 10% greater than six months ago. It includes 20 rape cases among other serious criminal cases. Can the Secretary of State for Justice inform me why the Government have effectively legalised criminal activity in Bolton, in Greater Manchester and throughout Britain?

Gareth Johnson: The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of the backlog; it is a serious matter. That is why we have put in a catalogue of measures to help tackle it, including: introducing Nightingale courts, which will be sitting until 2024-25; increasing the cap on sitting days; and raising the retirement age for judges. We have done a lot and I hope the hon. Lady will be gracious enough to congratulate the Lord Chancellor on successfully negotiating an end to the Bar strike, which will help tackle this serious problem.

Lindsay Hoyle: You could always open the courts in Chorley to help.

Rehman Chishti: With regards to addressing the backlog of criminal cases, the Minister will know that the largest category in the backlog of 60,000 cases is sexual offences. Previously, I have made representations to the former Lord Chancellor and the No. 10 policy unit to have specialist sexual courts to address that category. On 16 June, the previous Justice Secretary announced pilot projects for sexual offences courts in Leeds, Newcastle and Snaresbrook Crown court. That is something that I pushed for along with Kim Hollis, the former Director of Public Prosecutions in the British Virgin Islands. Has that taken place and what further steps have been taken to ensure that those pilot project results are taken forward?

Gareth Johnson: I understand that, yes, that has taken place. My hon. Friend raises a very serious issue about the backlog and particularly about the serious offences that are contained within it. This is why we must get the number of outstanding cases, particularly the serious sexual offences, down. As far as the courts specialising in sexual offences are concerned, we are  looking at pilots and considering the matter. There are pros and cons to that approach, and that is represented right across the criminal justice system with some people speaking up in favour of it and others against. That is why we need to look incredibly carefully at that very serious issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Alex Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for raising this question—a question that could be asked of each and every town and city with a courtroom, because the picture is dire up and down the country. I am glad, however, that the Ministry of Justice got back round the table with representatives from the criminal Bar and engaged with their concerns so that justice could get moving again. However, just a couple of weeks after that strike action ended, the Minister is facing more. It is about the failure of the Common Platform, which is preventing staff from doing their jobs effectively and holding up justice for victims and defendants alike. I welcome to his place the fourth Justice Minister that I have faced across the Dispatch Box. Will he now do what his managers and predecessors have refused to do and pause the further roll-out of this system until he gets it fixed?

Gareth Johnson: I totally reject the argument that somehow the Common Platform is responsible for the backlog in the courts; it is not. What happened is that the backlog in the courts increased during covid. We were the first country in the world to recommence jury trials and get our courts back working again. The backlog was going down, but we then had the Bar strike, which, understandably, increased it because barristers were not working, but thanks to the actions of the Lord Chancellor, we now have resolved that issue and can look forward to the backlog coming down.

Criminal Barristers: Return to Work

Duncan Baker: What recent steps his Department has taken to help support criminal barristers return to work.

Brandon Lewis: We have boosted the system with additional investment and engagement with the Criminal Bar Association. I welcome its constructive engagement and that of the Bar Council, which led to the end of the strike. We have ensured there is an uplift on new cases and for the vast majority of existing cases, which will come into force by 31 October 2022, plus additional funding for case preparation work, further funding for defence barristers involved in pre-recorded cross-examinations, which are used to reduce the trauma of a trial for vulnerable victims and witnesses, by early 2023—coming back to the earlier question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves)—a substantial uplift per year for fees in the youth court and the criminal legal aid advisory board. All those changes, alongside the longer-term proposed reforms, mean there is an increased expected criminal aid spend of £1.2 billion per year. I am glad the barristers are back to work; that is good for victims and we can get these cases moving.

Duncan Baker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his collegiate approach and the speed with which he has brought about this situation with the Criminal Bar Association. Can he further assure me that, as well as the 15% uplift for barristers, his Department will continue to invest more widely in criminal legal aid, to ensure that it is adequately funded for the future as well?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The reality is that all lawyers, barristers and solicitors want to be working for the benefit of their clients and to ensure that victims are able to see cases come to justice. Speedy justice is good justice, with positive and proper outcomes through the right processes. Following the publication of the criminal legal aid independent review, we will be investing a further £135 million in criminal legal aid per year, the biggest increase in many decades, and setting out further plans for all parts of the profession as part of our response to CLAIR at the end of November.

Valerie Vaz: The Secretary of State mentions solicitors, so can he say why solicitors have received only a 9% increase in fees, prompting the Law Society to say that they may not undertake criminal defence work?

Brandon Lewis: I am not sure many people would class 9% as “only”, but that also does not reflect some of the other investments that solicitors will benefit from, particularly the substantial investment in youth courts, for example. As I said, we will respond more widely to CLAIR for the whole profession at the end of November and work with the relevant societies and associations.

Alex Chalk: I warmly commend the intervention of the Secretary of State to end the dispute; it was decisive and constructive and it is hugely welcome. I echo the points made just now: it is important for the criminal justice system to work well that solicitors too are properly remunerated. That is the view I take and I know the Chair of the Justice Committee would have made those points if he was not unavoidably detained today.

Brandon Lewis: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and from the Dispatch Box I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is otherwise engaged today on some very enjoyable and well-deserved matters. I hope he has a wonderful day. As I have said, we are going to be responding more fully to the CLAIR report, but my hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that the criminal justice system works best when all parts of it are functioning fluidly and effectively for the benefit of all their clients and for wider society, and I am determined to ensure that we deliver that.

Andrew Slaughter: On the issue of solicitors’ fees, the Secretary of State clearly does not agree with his Justice Minister in the other place, Lord Bellamy, who said that the situation for criminal legal aid solicitors is more parlous than for barristers. The 9% is below the rate of inflation and it follows a 25-year pay freeze. When is the Secretary of State going to look properly at the issue of solicitors’ fees?

Brandon Lewis: In the classic phrase, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks I have made many times already in the last few minutes.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come now to shadow Minister Afzal Khan.

Afzal Khan: I hope the Justice Secretary will join me in congratulating Lubna Shuja, who becomes the first Asian and Muslim president of the Law Society.
Sir Christopher Bellamy’s review of criminal legal aid was clear that legal aid rates needed to rise to 15% to put the system on a sustainable footing. However, the Government’s proposals would raise legal aid rates only to 9% for solicitors, which is below inflation. The Law Society warned that the justice system is on the verge of collapse without funding all parts of it equally. Will the Lord Chancellor adjust his proposals to meet the recommendations of the Bellamy review?

Brandon Lewis: I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the new president of the Law Society. I look forward to working closely with her, as I do with other parts of the criminal justice system’s leadership through the Criminal Justice Board. We will respond to the full CLAIR report and we will be working with solicitors. There is a wider package for the entire criminal justice system; even within what we have announced as part of the Criminal Bar Association package, there are substantial chunks that benefit solicitors as well. The hon. Gentleman should have a look at the wider package.

Support for Victims

Sarah Champion: What steps he is taking to support victims in the criminal justice system.

Rachel Maclean: Our victims Bill will improve support for victims of crime, so they can cope with and recover from the impact. It will help them remain engaged with the criminal justice system and strengthen the transparency and accountability of those agencies and authorities that should be there to protect them.

Sarah Champion: I thank the Minister for her comments, but I want to raise something specific that could be done through the victims Bill, which is to ban the use of victims’ counselling notes in courts. In July, the Attorney General extended the guidance, making it easier for such notes to go into the public domain. That has had a huge and immediate chilling effect on victims getting pre-trial therapy and on them coming forward at all. Please can the Minister address this.

Rachel Maclean: The hon. Lady raises a vital issue to which we are paying close attention through the work of the rape review. It is not the case that it is now easier for those notes to be requested. I am aware that the hon. Lady is holding an event this afternoon. I would be very happy to come along, talk to her and put right some of the points she has made. We are determined to improve the experience of victims of rape and we are making great strides already.

Anna McMorrin: While the Government derail the economy and crash the markets, victims and survivors are still being abandoned. This Government are too busy trying to save their own skin to care about what is happening to victims. One survivor told me her partner sexually assaulted her and abused her child. Her truth was misbelieved and mistrusted. She never got her day in court. Now she is just one of many Jane Does denied justice and traumatised by the criminal justice system. These are the victims being failed by this Government’s negligence, and now we have a victims Bill going nowhere. Will the Minister tell victims when she is finally going to put them first and bring forward a Bill?

Rachel Maclean: This Government are determined to stand behind victims of crime. That is why, as the hon. Lady knows, the Justice Committee has carried out detailed pre-legislative scrutiny. We are reviewing that very carefully and we will bring forward the victims Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Topical Questions

Nadia Whittome: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Brandon Lewis: My immediate priority on becoming Justice Secretary was to end the disruptive strike action that was delaying justice in our criminal courts. I am pleased that the Criminal Bar Association voted to agree a new legal aid deal and its members returned to work last week.
The Government have reset a constructive relationship with barristers and we have agreed to work together to bring down court backlogs, so that victims can get the timely justice they deserve. We have also announced more plans for more prison leavers to be fitted with GPS tags, so that we can keep a close eye on them to help deter reoffending, reduce crime and, importantly, keep our citizens and communities safe.

Nadia Whittome: Ten years since the abolition of the sentence of imprisonment for public protection, nearly 3,000 people are still in prison serving indeterminate sentences. Last month, the Justice Committee released a report calling the sentence “irredeemably flawed”, highlighting the severe psychological harm it causes and its adverse impact on rehabilitation. Will the Secretary of State act on the report’s recommendation to bring in legislation to resentence prisoners subject to IPP sentences?

Brandon Lewis: As the hon. Lady rightly says, that report has been published. We are considering it and we will respond in due course.

Stephen Metcalfe: I was pleased by my right hon. Friend’s announcement at the party conference that more criminals will be closely monitored through GPS tagging. Can he assure me that the funding for that is available, so that my constituents can have the confidence that they will be safer on their streets?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, absolutely. I am looking forward to being able to roll out up to 8,000 new tags as part of the scheme we have announced. The scheme is funded and will be happening. It is important to stress that it is on top of current prison leavers, and it will give extra protection and confidence to communities because we will know what the people who are tagged are doing and where they are. It adds to community safety and gives a sense of safety to everyone.

Chris Law: Recent statistics show the backlog in the Crown court has increased to more than 61,000 cases. Given our collective experience during covid and the necessity of non-face-to-face meetings, and how valuable the work done during such difficult times was, will the Justice Secretary update the House on what discussions have taken place on more use of virtual proceedings, and on a full and sustained funding package to modernise the courts estate? Does he agree that this needs to be implemented urgently, with Scotland receiving its full Barnett consequentials?

Gareth Johnson: The court backlog is an important issue. As part of the deal done with the Criminal Bar Association, we are looking at giving better funding for cross-examination under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 for victims of serious sexual violence, but the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have put in place a catalogue of measures to tackle the backlog in the Crown court. We want to get on top of the backlog; we were getting on top of it until the Bar strike took place, and thanks to the deal that has been struck, we are now optimistic that it will start to come down.

Edward Leigh: Everyone is scratching their head about how to send illegal migrants back across the channel, but every time we try something, it is trumped by human rights lawyers. Clearly something must be done. Is there anything in the Human Rights Act 1998 or the convention on refugees to stop us sending illegal migrants straight back to our sovereign military base in Cyprus, which we own? They do not need to be locked up; they can just be sent back to where they come from.

Gareth Johnson: We believe that our proposals to process people in Rwanda are compliant with not only the UN convention on refugees, but the European convention on human rights. We believe that our proposals are within not just international law but national law. There is nothing in those laws that prevent us from carrying out the policy we are proposing.

Ruth Jones: A teenage girl in my constituency was sexually assaulted by two boys from her school. The police took a long time to investigate, but eventually the file was passed to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS has stated that there was sufficient evidence to show that the young woman was physically and sexually assaulted by the two youths; however, it went on to state that despite this evidence it would be dropping the case because it would prejudice further the two youths in future. Is this justice? What message does it send to women and girls across England and Wales?

Rachel Maclean: I will be happy to look into that case. More broadly, the hon. Lady highlights the vital importance of the police and the CPS working closely together when they develop case files to go forward to the courts. That is the work we are doing in Operation Soteria. It is already resulting in more charges and more convictions for rape and serious sexual assault.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome the Department for Work and Pensions having a dedicated team in my constituency to ensure that ex-offenders find gainful employment. May I seek assurances from the Ministry of Justice that that collaborative work to rehabilitate ex-offenders will continue?

Rob Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, to which the short answer is yes, it absolutely will. It is a priority for this Government to increase the proportion of prison leavers in sustainable employment. We work closely with DWP to do that via its network of prison work coaches. We are also committed to working with the Department to improve access to universal credit.

Martyn Day: Before shelving the Bill of Rights, the Justice Secretary’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), attempted to exclude the Government from the protections on free speech. Does the current Justice Secretary agree that if the Bill is to return in some form at a later date, the Government should not seek to impose on others rules that they are not willing to accept on themselves?

Brandon Lewis: We will always make sure that we are working within the rule of law, including internationally. That is vital to us. We are committed to bringing forward proposals that work, that protect freedom of speech, and that ensure we deal with some of the egregious attempts at prosecution and shutting down debate being made by ne’er do wells around the world.

Scott Benton: It is becoming pretty clear that we cannot get a grip on the small boats crisis and deliver significant reform of our asylum system without reforming the Human Rights Act. What is the Government’s plan?

Gareth Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. It is the Government’s position that we can tackle that significant problem within the current law. He will be aware that two judicial reviews are pending, but we are committed to the European convention on human rights and to the UN refugee convention. We believe that our proposals are within the law and that no court has said otherwise.

Tan Dhesi: In recent weeks, my constituency has endured a spate of drugs and knife crime, which has resulted in the tragic loss of young lives. We must get more policing and preventive resources for Slough. Given the current justice backlogs, caused by Conservative Governments closing half of all our courts in England and Wales since 2010, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give to  victims and their families that they will not have to wait up to the current unacceptable average of four years to get their day in court?

Brandon Lewis: As we said earlier, getting on top of that core backlog, which has obviously gone up as a result of pressures, is an absolutely key piece of work for us. People sometimes forget that we have lost almost a couple of years through covid and through the Bar strike this year. It is also about making sure that communities are safe through things such as the tagging scheme that we are rolling out, to ensure that people have confidence in their communities as well.

Jack Brereton: Stoke-on-Trent has been blighted by drugs recently, particularly monkey dust, which is ruining lives. I am calling for monkey dust to be reclassified as a class A drug. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what action the Government are taking to increase the penalties for people who trade in those horrific drugs?

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend is completely right to highlight the harm and the horrendous impacts of drug dealing in his constituency. There are already significant penalties for supplying that drug—as a class B drug, the maximum penalty is four years in prison—but the Government always keep such matters under review.

Meg Hillier: It is not just the criminal courts that are seeing backlogs; the probate registry service and the divorce courts are also causing problems. One constituent came to my surgery last week. She is still living with her husband but her divorce case has been passed to Suffolk, where people cannot understand how she could still be living in the same house as him while trying to divorce—but that is the reality of the London housing situation. What action is the Minister taking to make sure that the pace of dealing with such cases increases?

Gareth Johnson: The Government have invested £324 million over the next three years to bring down the backlog in the family courts. The hon. Lady is right to mention the probate court as well. Obtaining grants of probate has a satisfaction rating of about 90%, but there are some serious delays with that other 10%. When people apply online and everything is order, probate is swiftly dealt with, but there are difficulties with some of the other 10% of cases. We are working on that at speed.

Luke Evans: Colin Pitchfork is a double child killer and rapist who came in front of the Parole Board. My predecessor referred the case back to the Parole Board to be reviewed, but Colin Pitchfork was then released and had his licence revoked again after worrying behaviour around young women. The Government committed to a root-and-branch review of the parole system in March. Will the Minister update the House on progress on that, so that such cases never happen again?

Rachel Maclean: The public rightly want to know how that was allowed to happen, which is the impetus for our root-and-branch reform of the Parole Board. It now falls to the Parole Board to review Pitchfork’s detention. I assure my hon. Friend that it is very much  the Secretary of State’s intention to provide a view on suitability for release. As soon as parliamentary time allows—

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Emma Lewell-Buck.

Rachel Maclean: We will legislate to go further to allow Ministers to block release.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. When I say I am moving on, I am moving on; it is not for you to continue. It goes at my pace, not yours. I call Emma Lewell-Buck.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I have repeatedly raised the anguish that my constituents, the parents of Chloe Rutherford and Liam Curry, are going through. Chloe and Liam were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Archaic law in relation to terror attacks prevents my constituents registering their precious children’s death. I first raised the issue in March—it was urgent then. Despite multiple promises from the Government Benches that legislative change was being considered, nothing at all has been forthcoming to me or my constituents. Why?

Mike Freer: I thank the hon. Lady for the work that I know she has being doing on the issue and I am very conscious that the matter is outstanding. I can only reassure her of the Government’s commitment to find a route through the current legal blockage that does not allow the families to take part in registration. I promise her that I will bring forward a solution as soon as I can.

Tim Loughton: Yesterday, The Telegraph reported on some very worrying cases of babies who were born alive but sadly died soon after, but whose deaths have been recorded as stillbirths by the hospital, meaning a coroner could not investigate. Three and a half years ago, my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019 required the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 could be amended to give coroners the power to investigate those stillbirths. Why has it still not happened?

Mike Freer: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are still reviewing those recommendations and looking forward to bringing forward methods, with the Chief Coroner, on how we can address that backlog.

Barry Sheerman: Will the new team look at the way we handle miscarriages  of justice in this country? Will they look at the report from the all-party group on miscarriages of justice, which is chaired by me and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and help us to reform the way in which we treat miscarriages of justice?

Brandon Lewis: I always make it a priority to ensure that I am working with Committees. I will very happily have a look at that report. I am happy to talk to the hon. Member and his co-chairman in due course as well.

James Daly: The Justice Committee —[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is going to have to take her seat. She cannot just stand there while we are in the middle of questions.

James Daly: The Justice Committee, of which I am a member, published our report on IPP—imprisonment for public protection—sentences on 28 September. There was a very clear recommendation that all IPP prisoners currently in custody should be resentenced, something which I wholeheartedly support. Could I ask my hon. Friend to confirm the timeframe for the Government’s response to the Justice Committee report? Further, what immediate steps are being put in place to support IPP prisoners currently struggling in a custodial environment?

Rob Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is probably right that I point out that I was still a member of the Justice Committee when it took evidence for that inquiry, but I did not contribute to the drafting of the report. I absolutely acknowledge that we find ourselves in an extremely difficult position with IPP prisoners, and I am determined to resolve the problem as far as possible, but it has to be understood that there is not a simple one-size-fits-all solution that is appropriate for all people, so I am very carefully considering the recommendations. That is something we are doing very speedily, and as soon as we have come up with a conclusion, the Justice Committee will receive my response.

Andrew Slaughter: The Government rightly abandoned their Bill of Rights, describing it as a “complete mess”, principally because it sought to stay within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights while ignoring its judgments. Is that still the Government’s position and, if so, how will they stop their next attempt also being a complete mess?

Brandon Lewis: Rather like the answer earlier, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to answers I gave earlier. I have extensively outlined the position on the Bill of Rights.

Matt Warman: So-called open prisons in constituencies such as mine, such as North Sea Camp, play a vital role in our justice system, but the inmates in those prisons often cause concern to local residents. Would the Minister join me in encouraging both the Prison Service and the Parole Board to engage with local communities so that they can understand what they do to make sure local communities are kept as safe as they possibly can be?

Rob Butler: I am very happy to do so. Open prisons play a very important part in the rehabilitation of offenders, and I am more than happy to make sure that they have the understanding and the commitment of local communities, so we can rehabilitate prisoners, reduce reoffending and ensure we have fewer victims of crime.

Lindsay Hoyle: That completes the questions. We now come to the urgent question. Those who wish to leave, please do so.

Chinese Consulate: Attack on  Hong Kong Protesters

Alicia Kearns: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on what representations he has made to the Chinese Communist party following the attack on Hong Kong protesters at the Chinese consulate in Manchester.

Jesse Norman: Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much indeed for allowing us to have this urgent question on a topic of enormous importance. May I start by recognising, thanking and welcoming my hon. Friend to her position as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
As the House will know, His Majesty’s Government are extremely concerned at the apparent scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. Greater Manchester police had been pre-notified of the demonstration and intervened to restore order; we are grateful to them for their action. I understand that Greater Manchester police have launched an investigation to establish the facts of the incident.
The Foreign Secretary has issued a summons to the Chinese chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy in London to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and to demand an explanation for the actions of the consulate staff. It would be inappropriate to go into further detail until the investigation has concluded, but let me be clear that, as this House has always recognised, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and our way of life. All those on our soil have the right to express their views peacefully without fear of violence. FCDO officials expressed that clearly to the Chinese embassy yesterday. We will continue to work with the Home Office and Greater Manchester police colleagues to decide on appropriate next steps.

Alicia Kearns: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this UQ and for the personal interest you have taken in this over the last few days.
On Sunday, peaceful protesters gathered outside the Chinese consulate to campaign for human rights in Hong Kong. What we saw was the Chinese consul-general then ripping down posters during a peaceful protest. There soon followed grievous bodily harm against Hong Kongers, one of whom was hospitalised for taking part in that peaceful protest. Some were then dragged on to consulate territory for a further beating by officials who have been recognised to be members of the Chinese Communist party. We cannot allow the CCP to import its beating of protesters and silencing of free speech, and its utter failure time and again to allow protest on British soil.
This is a chilling escalation. We have seen continued persecution of the Uyghur, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and all those who come to our country to seek refuge. What took place on Sunday suggests they cannot seek refuge here and have their voices heard, and our job is to make sure their voices are not silenced.
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the ambassador has been summoned. I am surprised the meeting has not taken place so far. Will he please confirm when it will be taking place and that he will update the House thereafter? Will he also confirm that any Chinese official involved in the beatings will be prosecuted and that, if they cannot be prosecuted, they will be expelled from this country within the week, and what the Government are doing to protect protests? That is a fundamental right and we must uphold it at home if we are to have any chance of upholding it abroad.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. On the point of the summons, my understanding is that the chargé d’affaires will meet with officials this afternoon, there having already been an informal exchange of concern between the two sides. My hon. Friend will know that, precisely because of the belief in this House in the rule of law, it is up to our independent police and Crown Prosecution Service to decide first on the facts of the matter and then on whether a prosecution should be brought. But, like her, I witnessed what took place in the video on Sunday and I am sure every Member of this House feels the same level of concern as she does.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister, Catherine West.

Catherine West: I am so pleased that there is consensus across this House that freedom of expression is an important principle which we hold dear in our democracy, and it is testament to our freedoms that on countless occasions in recent years protesters have been able to express their views, whether on China, Russia, Myanmar or countless other countries.
What we saw at the weekend in Manchester was, as the Mayor of Manchester has said, a sharp departure from this established pillar of our liberal democracy. The sight of suspected Chinese consular officials destroying posters, using violence and intimidation, and dragging a protester into the grounds of the consulate and assaulting him is deeply shocking. We all want to be clear that that behaviour is not and never will be acceptable and deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms. We simply cannot tolerate the type of action we have seen. The principle of free expression is so important, as is the protection of Hong Kongers and others who have fled Beijing’s repression, although I note with irony that later today we will be debating a Government Bill that discusses some of the same themes.
Labour has been consistently warning about the need to protect newly arrived Hong Kong people. May I press the Minister on what exactly will happen to consular officials who have been properly identified as involved in this incident? Can this House expect that they will be expelled from the UK?
What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office and Levelling Up Secretaries on a proper plan for robust and extensive support for Hong Kong people across the country to ensure that they are protected and supported in the face of ongoing surveillance and oppression? What steps will he take to ensure that the sanctity of our freedoms—specifically, the freedom of expression—is protected outside all foreign embassies and consulate grounds in the UK to avoid a repeat of  this shocking behaviour? Mr Speaker, as you said yesterday, the Hong Kong community in the UK is watching, and actions must match words.

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She asked about the treatment of consular officials. Of course, I would wish to be able to give the House details of my personal views on these matters, but the fact of the matter is that we are in a process of law. I would expect that process to be diligently and effectively carried out, but, for reasons that she will understand, I cannot comment on it.
As regards the treatment of Hong Kong visitors and arrivals to this country under the new scheme, my colleagues in the Home Office and the Levelling Up Department have taken great measures to put in place a welcome set of arrangements for them and to manage the processing in an effective and timely way. I am pleased that we have done that because we need to support Hong Kong in all the ways that I am sure she would welcome.

Iain Duncan Smith: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on getting the urgent question. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on pursuing it, quite rightly. I do not understand why the Government could not have put forward a statement today, even if that was to say what they have said today. I am afraid it really does show a little bit the Government dancing away from this in the hope that something else will turn up.
We have spoken to the individual who was hauled in, and I want to mention a couple of points from the statement that he is giving the police. He confirms categorically that the guards at the gate hauled him in, tore his hands and his hair, and beat him. He said that at least four people were kicking him and, for one minute at least, tearing his hair. He said:
“My head, face, arm, body and back are hurt—especially my back. It is very painful.”
He said that he struggles at the moment even to sit down. That is happening on British soil. The Government has now got to step up and answer this simple question, asked earlier by my hon. Friend: has the Secretary of State not just called on the chargé d’affaires but hauled in the ambassador directly to see him? Will the Secretary of State now be prepared to expel the consul-general and any of those found to have been part of that punishment beating and vandalism? All I want is a simple, “Yes. If there is evidence, we will expel them.”

Jesse Norman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not think that there is any suggestion of dancing away. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, in her position as the recently elected Chair, put the question. We respect that, and we worked with the Speaker’s Office and with her to answer it. That is exactly what we are doing now, and rightly so.
As to my right hon. Friend’s question, it is of course a question of law as to what offences were committed on British soil, and it is absolutely right to have a legal procedure that goes through that and examines the question in all its aspects. As to summoning the ambassador, I thank my right hon. Friend for his input. We have already outlined the process of raising the matter formally  with the Chinese embassy, and we will see where the legal and prosecutorial procedures may lead. At that point, we will take further action.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Alyn Smith: I commend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing forward the urgent question and, you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. This is an important thing for us all to take stock of. I take at face value the Minister’s assurance of consequence once the independent investigation has completed. I invite him to come back to the House and make a statement once that investigation is concluded, because we need to maintain our interest in it.
There has been concern for many years about the networks of coercion and control that the Chinese state has over Chinese nationals in the UK. Will the Minister add to his efforts and bring Confucius Institutes into his thinking? There are networks that need a lot more scrutiny than they have had. If Manchester proves to be what we fear it was, it was a considerable escalation of the Chinese networks of coercion and control, and the Confucius Institutes need to be part of the investigation.

Jesse Norman: Of course, there is enormous interest in this topic, and not just on the specifics of particular events but on the wider geo-strategic question of the relationship between China and the rest of the world, and its respect for the rules-based order. Of course, I understand that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will apply to Confucius Institutes and has within it some important new measures to track foreign influence and to ensure that it is publicly held to account. As I wrote the original amendment as a Back Bencher on which they are based, I must say that I feel a certain degree of pride in that area. It was not aimed at any particular country, but it can absolutely be used in relation to the Confucius Institutes.

John Glen: My constituents will be alarmed at what they saw happen in Manchester. I recognise that the Government will have to maintain a constructive dialogue amidst a complicated relationship with China, but let us be really clear that the Chinese regime have shifted in their behaviours in recent years. The behaviour on the streets of Manchester demonstrates that shift. I urge my right hon. Friend not to hold back in facing up to the reality of the new dynamics of the relationship with China. We must remain constructive, but we must also face up to the fact that we now have very different values from those in China.

Jesse Norman: I thank my hon. Friend very much for his intervention. He is absolutely right. The point of constructive engagement is to do what we can to retain China’s respect for the international rules-based order, while also noting and concerting with allies to exercise influence where we can on any breaches in that area. He is absolutely right to point that out. Let me say one other quick thing. The many overlapping areas in which we and our allies interact with China require a nuanced and constructive approach, but the point about doubling down is absolutely right. Let me remind him that although the integrated review is not about any specific country or region, it is going through a refresh at the moment, and it will take account of emerging, current and expected future threats.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Member whose constituency was involved, Afzal Khan.

Afzal Khan: I have joined peaceful protests outside the consulate countless times and I am sickened that such an event took place in my own constituency. The scenes, which are reminiscent of the aggressive intimidating tactics of the Chinese Communist party, have no place on the streets of my city or our country. The UK stands for freedom, the rule of law and democracy. The crushing of peaceful protest will never be tolerated on British soil. The Minister knows that the consul general has diplomatic immunity, so he cannot be prosecuted. Will the Minister take immediate action and declare the consul general as a persona non grata, and what steps will he take to protect pro-democracy activists here in the UK?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question. I completely understand the personal constituency interest he has in this set of events and in previous events and activities around the consulate. He is right, of course, to say that the UK stands for freedom, the rule of law and democracy. I could not have put it better myself and that is exactly right. He is also right to ask the question about persona non grata. We cannot anticipate the results of a legal process, but I have already told the House that we will take action once we have a full understanding of the facts and the prosecutorial decision—[Interruption]—allowing chuntering from all sides if necessary, from a sedentary position. Let me just say, finally—[Interruption.]—if I may, that he is also right to focus on the victim. That is a crucial aspect—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it—and it is something we expect local government, as well as central Government, to be supportive of, to the extent that we possibly can be.

Fiona Bruce: Yesterday, as patron of Hong Kong Watch, I had the privilege to meet about 50 admirable and mainly young people who have moved here from Hong Kong and are keen to engage in community life and, in some cases, political life in the UK. They deserve our support and encouragement, so will the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to address concerns of the Hong Kong community about potential intimidation and threats from the Chinese state apparatus on UK soil in respect of those who wish to engage in this way?

Jesse Norman: My hon. Friend will be aware that, in relation to Hong Kong, we have ended the extradition treaty and taken a number of other steps designed to recognise the seriousness of the issues. Of course, we have also, vitally, opened the British national overseas route to Hong Kong residents, and more than 100,000 people have applied for that; that is an incredible infusion of energy and genius into our polity and we should absolutely welcome it. We have extended that, in part in response to concerns in this House, via an amendment to be tabled today, to the adult children of BNO-eligible people, so that they, too, can feel that warm welcome we should be extending to those people.

Jim Shannon: China has no respect for the rule of law and its attitude is aggressive; it thinks it can do whatever it wants and get away with it—this  House needs to say that it cannot. Reports suggest that one of the consulate staff who assaulted the pro-democracy protestor was the consul general, Zheng Xiyuan. Does the Minister agree with me and others in this House that if the consul general is found to have led the attack, he should be declared persona non grata by His Majesty’s Government and sent, along with the others involved, back to China, where he belongs?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Gentleman asks whether action will follow “if” what he sets out is found to be the case. I am not going to comment on a hypothetical, but he is right to recognise that there has to be a process of determination before any action can follow. Let me say one other thing that relates to the point raised earlier about the rule of law, human rights, freedom and democracy. There is an ideological clash here and we should be aware of it. We should not be shy in recognising it and we should do what we can to insist on the importance of the rules-based order that we have always stood for as a nation. We should encourage allies to be talking in those terms, rather than to be ceding ideological ground, whoever may be on the other side of the argument—there are various parts of the world in which different arguments are being made against this. That is ultimately the core of what this institution of Parliament is about.

Matt Warman: The concern is ultimately that China is taking the same attitude to human rights in this country as it is taking at home. Many of us have raised that concern and it is not my understanding that we need to follow through a legal process prior to expelling people who are involved in this. Will the Minister say why he believes we need to follow that process?

Jesse Norman: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood me, as I have not said that there needs to be a legal process; I have said that there has to be a process of determining what the facts are. That has already been conceded by Members from across this House, and it is important that we have not only our private views as to what may or may not have been on video, however well founded they may be, but an official view based on proper scrutiny.

Sarah Owen: As the Minister is hiding behind process on a number of these issues, I will try a different tack. What steps is he taking to work with colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that police officers are adequately trained and aware of the cultural and political sensitivities when protecting the thousands of Hongkongers who are seeking safety in our country, especially when people have been attacked by Chinese communist party agents or suspected CCP agents? We know that what we saw outside the consulate is not an isolated incident.

Jesse Norman: As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, there is no question of hiding behind process; we have a rule of law in this country and we allow legal processes to go through. We allow processes of fact and determination before action is taken. That is entirely appropriate, and it is what one would expect from a country that professes to be the home of the rule of law, as has been rightly said. However, it is important to say that police forces are extremely concerned about and sensitive to the  kinds of issues that the hon. Lady raises. Indeed, I do not need to tell the House that the Greater Manchester police deal with a very wide range of ethnicities and concerns, and have specific training in order to manage those issues in a sensitive and engaged way.

Robin Walker: I welcome the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the fact that a proper investigation into this will be held. But even before these incredibly worrying scenes that we have all seen, concerns were being raised in both the British and Irish press about an informal network of Chinese overseas police service stations. Constituents of mine who are deeply worried about that have contacted me and asked me to seek ministerial action on it. Will the Minister confirm that there is no legal standing for such organisations? If we are summoning Chinese diplomats and officials, may we ask them for an explanation of these stories about such networks?

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important point. My understanding is that such organisations have no formal status of any kind in this country. The concerns of this House are understood and very much reflected in the concerns that my officials and those in the respective parts of the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have.

Andrew Gwynne: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on securing this urgent question and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. Had these incidents happened on the streets of Hong Kong, there would rightly have been outrage from the British Government. They happened on the streets of Manchester, in this United Kingdom, yet the Minister is basically sending a memo to the Chinese embassy and an offer of a cup of tea and a chat with the ambassador. We want the ambassador to be brought to the Foreign Office and told in no uncertain terms that these actions are against the rule of law and against human rights in this country. Any Chinese agent found responsible for the disgraceful actions in Manchester should be on the first plane back to Beijing.

Jesse Norman: There is a massive difference between this country and the situation in Hong Kong: in Hong Kong there are genuine, proper concerns about whether there is anything approximating the rule of law, in the sense that we would understand it. So when we express anger as individuals, as parliamentarians and as concerned citizens about this, that is, in part, what we have a concern about. I do not think, however things may appear in the short term, that this is a question in this country. We will pursue this situation and these people according to the rule of law, and we will follow up on that basis.

Richard Holden: I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) to her new position; it is great to see a member of the ’29 intake taking on that role. I also welcome the Government’s statement so far, although I just hope they can go a bit further and faster. Does the  Minister agree that this might be the most visible and violent manifestation of the long arm of the CCP? Will he also ensure that more underground and less visible bullying and intimidation by CCP agents, such as on university campuses in this country, will also be exposed and challenged at every opportunity?

Jesse Norman: Young, youthful and vigorous as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is, the intake of ’29 might not be quite the right one for her. Of course I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and it is wonderful to see that 2019 generation coming into positions of great authority in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) raised the point about covert activity and he is right to double down on that and discuss it in the context of universities. He will also understand that we have rules now on foreign influence coming into play, in terms of registration, that are, in part, precisely designed to identify those people and institutions and bring them within a more explicit and transparent framework.

Christine Jardine: I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) for securing the urgent question on this shocking incident. It was a flagrant breach of human rights on British soil, but we should not allow ourselves to think that it was an isolated one, because we know that it is not. My constituency houses the Chinese consulate in Scotland, and I am regularly contacted by young Hongkongers in Edinburgh who are concerned about the level of surveillance and intimidation. I have experienced it myself when speaking at a Hong Kong protest in Edinburgh, where we were filmed by a drone operated be a gentleman sitting nearby. It is not acceptable that this is happening on UK soil. For young Hongkongers who were born after 1997 and do not hold BNO passports, having to travel to consulates to have their special passports renewed is a particular fear for many of them. So will the Minister find a way of issuing travel documents so that they do not have to go on to the grounds of the consulate, where they now, rightly, might fear that their safety is jeopardised?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady raises two interesting points. There are aspects of our open democratic society—such as the use of drones—that can be used in a very intimidating way. She is absolutely right to point to that, and it raises a longer-term issue for our security and wellbeing. On the consulates, I thank her for her suggestion, which needs to be taken very seriously; I am grateful for it.

Graham Stringer: At a time when relationships with China were improving, I was a guest at the consulate in Manchester on a number of occasions. It struck me then that the consulate is huge—by far the biggest consulate of the many in Manchester. At a time when détente has finished and relationships with China are getting worse, because it is not respecting international law or the laws of this country, the size of that consulate indicates to me that it is being used to control and police members of the Chinese community in Manchester. When the Minister has had the results of the investigations—whatever they turn out to be—will he consider reducing the size of  that consulate and any other consulates that the Chinese have, because they are being used not for the normal business of consulates, but as an extension of the Beijing Government in this country?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not think that I should comment on the activities of the consulate, with which I am not personally familiar, but he is right that the fundamental consular activity is extremely straightforward, in terms of the support of one’s own people in a foreign country. One would not think that an enormous infrastructure is needed to do that. His point could be applied not just to consulates, but to other potential institutions around the country and around the world, and I thank him for that.

Kate Green: Trafford has been pleased to welcome many Hong Kong BNO families and we are very proud in my constituency to be the new home of the Manchester Taiwanese Association. Those communities will need considerable reassurance from the Government that they will be safe and secure in our country. Will the Minister give an assurance that if, as reports suggest, some of the activity—the abuse and violence—was conducted on consular premises, that will not preclude full investigation and full consequences being waged against those who conducted such activity?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that question. We would expect the independent police and other authorities to make as thorough an investigation as they can, given the circumstances, and we would expect to be sensitive to areas where they have not been permitted to undertake the level of scrutiny that we would expect under such circumstances.

Claire Hanna: The footage from Manchester was chilling to all of us who value human rights and non-violence, but it resonated particularly with many of my constituents in south Belfast—which is where the Northern Ireland Chinese consulate is located—who have seen up front the approach that the CCP take not just to international law, but respecting local law. In our case, that relates to developing its premises and enforcing security at them. South Belfast is also very proudly home to many people from Hong Kong who are creating a new life away from risk and repression. Will the Minister advise the House what guidance he will give to local authorities that are dealing with consulates and what his Government will do to protect the right to peaceful protest?

Jesse Norman: I am not sure that I fully caught the final sentence of the hon. Lady’s question, but it is of course an aspect of a UK-wide support network that we should be able to provide a welcome for visitors from Hong Kong. We have 12 virtual welcome hubs across the UK and funding for organisations to deliver UK-wide and regional projects, as well as other forms of welcome and support. I can encourage colleagues from the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to come forward if further things need to be put in place to address the issues that she raises.

Mike Kane: It was only in 2015 that we were welcoming his excellency, Xi Jinping, to Manchester, where he spoke of our city’s historical links with Wuhan and investments in Manchester airport, Manchester City, the University of Manchester and the Manchester international festival, but much has changed. Having met local Hong Kong residents in Trafford, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned, and having been personally at the rough end of Chinese state tactics—having met Cardinal Zen who is under house arrest in Hong Kong—I think that this country, to use the Mancunian vernacular, needs to grow a pair and say to China, “Be a force for good in the world and stop being state-sponsored thugs.”

Lindsay Hoyle: There we are—I call the Minister.

Jesse Norman: It is absolutely right to highlight the change in the position that China has taken over the past seven years. I do not think there is any doubt that it has changed, and we have had to evolve and change our response to that. The hon. Member is also right to talk about the importance of resolute action. However, this is in the context of the kind of constructive, multi-layered relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned. We therefore have to try all the measures in our power to retain a respect for the rules-based order, not just in this country, but around the world with our allies, and we are doing that.

Jeff Smith: My constituents in south Manchester were really shocked by the scenes that we saw on the video. With the greatest respect to the Minister, who I like a lot, we need not an explanation, but condemnation of that behaviour. I understand that he has to couch things in diplomatic terms, but as a matter of principle, if it was the case that senior officials of a foreign consulate were involved in an attack on peaceful protesters on the streets of Manchester, surely the only way to deal with that is to expel them.

Jesse Norman: The hon. Member may have missed the point in my statement where I said—and let me go further—that His Majesty’s Government are not only deeply concerned, but actively condemn the apparent scenes of violence that we saw at the consulate. I do not think there is any doubt about that. More widely, the position, as I have described it, is that we will await a factual determination and then take a decision based on that.

Stephen Kinnock: The export of China’s brutal, authoritarian, democracy-crushing behaviours is what we saw in Manchester. It is completely and utterly unacceptable. It is clear not just that there is the intimidation of Hongkongers and others, but that, in so many other areas, there is covert influence and attempts to subvert our democracy and education system. It is clear that we need an in-depth, comprehensive, strategic audit of every aspect of the relationship between the UK and China, from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to defence and education—right across Whitehall.
However, may I press the Minister on the specific point about the behaviour of the consul general? Will he make it absolutely clear from the Government Dispatch  Box that there is no connection between a police decision and a decision to expel? The decision to expel is a political decision. It is plain as the nose on our face that the consul general was involved in those violent scenes. He should be expelled immediately. Will the Minister confirm that there is no connection to a police investigation? It is a political decision to expel.

Jesse Norman: I have already made that clear to the House, but let me do so again. I am not suggesting—as I said earlier—that there is a direct connection, or indeed, any connection, between that decision and a police investigation, but we need to establish the facts in a way that is official and not just, as it were, the presentation of a personal view. That process is continuing and when we have the answer to that, we will take action. That is entirely appropriate. One should, in these contexts, seek an absolutely objective basis on which to act, which takes in all the information that may be available. That is what I think the police and the prosecuting authorities, to the extent that they take an interest, will do.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the Minister back to the Front Bench. I know he has always had a laid-back style, but I really think he should get a little angrier about the disgraceful thing that happened in Manchester.
I have many friends from and in Hong Kong, who tell me that when they come to this country now, they feel intimidated. The Chinese influence is in our universities, in our major companies and everywhere. That has not just happened; it is part of a serious effort by China to infiltrate this country at every level. As I have said before in the House, the electricity supply to all of London and the south of England is owned by a Chinese company. Has this not gone too far?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are plenty of ways in which this country has economic relationships with Chinese companies. In the normal course of trade, that has been to mutual benefit, but he is right that there is a need for concern about where there may be infiltration, coercion and the rest of it. That is a very live matter for the Government, which we have talked about it in the context of Confucius institutes and covert policing operations—as they may  be—and I have drawn the House’s attention, and do so again, to the foreign influence registration scheme that is being introduced under the National Security Bill. That scheme has been created specifically to tackle covert influence in the UK.

Margaret Ferrier: What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the USA, Canada, Australia and the EU about co-ordinated sanctions against the individuals responsible for the ongoing crackdown in Hong Kong?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady will be aware that the sanctions regime in question relates to the UN, which is a very effective international co-ordinating body. As I have touched on, we have taken lots of action short of that in responding to the coercion of Hongkongers in Hong Kong. I can also confirm that my officials remain in very close contact with similarly high-ranking staff of our allies around the world.

Richard Foord: Reflecting on what we saw over the weekend, the Chinese consulate general justified it by saying that the activists had
“hung an insulting portrait of the Chinese president at the main entrance”.
A spokesperson for the consulate general claimed:
“This would be intolerable and unacceptable for any diplomatic and consular missions of any country.”
I have looked at an image of the portrait and, although I accept that it would be regarded as offensive, I disagree with the Chinese consulate’s spokesperson. Does the Minister agree that if there had been such a demonstration outside the British consulate in Shanghai, we might not have liked the protest—we might even have found the portrait a little insulting—but we would have tolerated it? Is that difference in values being communicated to the Chinese ambassador?

Jesse Norman: I think it fair to say that the Chinese ambassador is fully aware of the spectrum of our concerns in relation to Chinese behaviour, whether that is in relation to victims of internationally condemned crimes in Xinjiang, whether it is in Hong Kong or whether it is in this country.

Points of Order

Richard Foord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we are all aware, the Prime Minister was absent during yesterday’s urgent question. We were assured at the time by the Leader of the House that there was “a very good reason” why the Prime Minister was unable to attend.
We were told that
“the Prime Minister is detained on urgent business”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 377.]
Naturally, Members across the House wondered whether that might mean a matter of national security or perhaps a meeting with an international ally, but it has now been reported that in fact the Prime Minister was holding a meeting with the chairman of the 1922 committee—not crisis talks, but a planned meeting. In the light of that information, it is hard to see how the picture painted by the Leader of the House yesterday holds up. Will she come and correct the record?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for notice of his point of order. He will know—if he did not, he will now—that I am not responsible for ministerial answers. If the Leader of the House feels that she has to correct the record, I am sure that she will do so. Also, we should not always look at or listen to what is in the press.

Marsha de Cordova: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ministerial code is very clear that if a Minister is visiting a Member’s constituency, he or she should inform that Member in good time. Indeed, all hon. Members who are visiting another Member’s constituency should inform that Member.
On Wednesday 12 October, the Minister for London, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), attended my constituency, as did the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Disappointingly, neither of their offices sought to inform mine. I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how we can ensure that all hon. Members adhere to the conventions and inform other Members when they wish to attend their constituencies.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank the hon. Lady for notice of her point of order and am grateful, as ever, for the way in which she puts it. She is absolutely correct. Not only do the House’s rules of behaviour and courtesies make it clear to all colleagues that they should give notice whenever they
“visit a colleague’s constituency (except on purely private visits)”,
but the ministerial code states:
“Ministers intending to make an official visit within the United Kingdom must inform in advance, and in good time, the MPs whose constituencies are to be included within the itinerary.”
It is about courtesy to colleagues. Ministers in particular must follow their own rules. I look to those on the Government Benches to ensure that this exchange is shared with ministerial colleagues so that it is not a recurring problem.
I add that the general election will be a frantic time, so I remind Members in all political parties that when they go into constituencies—I recognise that some might be more marginal than others—they must give due notice to ensure that the relevant Member is aware.

Bill Presented

Energy Equity Commission Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Clive Lewis, supported by Caroline Lucas, Nadia Whittome, Claire Hanna, Stephen Farry, Liz Saville Roberts, Olivia Blake and Rachael Maskell, presented a Bill to establish an Energy Equity Commission to prepare a strategy for the UK Government to help manage energy costs for households, businesses, non-profit organisations and public services by ending fossil fuel dependence; to require the Commission to set equalities and environmental objectives to be met by the UK Government in implementing the strategy; to require the Commission to make recommendations on replacing the price cap system with a free Universal Basic Energy Allowance and an associated social tariff for retail energy, on an energy allowance in Universal Credit and legacy benefits, on writing off household energy debt, on the remit and objectives of Ofgem, and on how the UK Government should meet the costs of the measures recommended by the Commission; to require the Commission to prepare a Retrofitting Strategy for the Nations, including proposals for a street-by-street retrofit programme led by devolved administrations and local authorities, for financial support for improving energy efficiency, for how to target households, businesses, not-for-profit organisations and public services most in need of support, for any changes required to Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards and Future Buildings Standards, for addressing workforce and training needs, and proposals on how the UK Government should meet the costs of these measures; to require the UK Government to implement the strategy and recommendations of the Energy Equity Commission within a specified timeframe; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March 2023, and to be printed (Bill 163).

Working Time Regulations  (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Peter Dowd: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Working Time Regulations 1998 to reduce the maximum working week from 48 hours per week to 32 hours per week and to provide for overtime pay; and for connected purposes.
It was almost exactly a century ago that British workers switched from a six-day week to a five-day week. Saturday used to be included in a standard working week, but between the 1920s and the 1940s, a five-day working week and a weekend became the normal way of working across most of the western world.
One of the early pioneers was Ford Motor Company in the United States. On 1 May 1926, Ford became the first major company in America to adopt a five-day, 40-hour week for workers in its automotive factories. Edsel Ford, who was Henry Ford’s son and the company’s president, said:
“Every man needs more than one day a week for rest and recreation…We believe that in order to live properly every man should have more time to spend with his family.”
Although working time was reduced, productivity went up.
Manufacturers all over the country soon followed Ford’s lead. Closer to home, John Boot, chairman of the Boots cosmetics company, initiated the same experiment. He, too, found that having two days off each week had a positive effect on productivity and reduced absenteeism. The weekend was made official Boots policy in 1934. Those who argued at the time against such a move said that the country would suffer economically, that businesses would not be able to afford it and that workers would not be able to adapt. They were proved wrong.
It should be put on record that without the sustained campaigns by the trade union movement that began towards the end of the 19th century and lasted for many decades, the weekend that we all enjoy today would never have been won. In that historical context, right hon. and hon. Members should reflect on the surge today in the popularity of a four-day working week.
The nine-to-five, five-day working week still remains the dominant model of work in much of the western world, but it is important to remember that it was designed for the industrial and agricultural economy we had at the time. I am sure Members would agree that 100 years later, the world of work has been completely transformed. However, working hours have not adapted to the changing nature of work. Campaigners for a four-day week say:
“The nine to five, five day working week is outdated and no longer fit for purpose.”
A look back at our more recent history suggests that they have a point. Since the 1980s, working hours in the UK have barely reduced at all. Despite the productivity gains of the last few decades, none of that has been passed on to workers through more free leisure time.
We are long overdue an update, and the covid pandemic has given us that opportunity. The UK is currently taking part in the biggest ever experiment of a four-day week, with no loss of pay for workers. Seventy companies  and more than 3,300 workers are taking part in a pilot run by 4 Day Week Global, the think-tank Autonomy and the 4 Day Week Campaign, and a survey of the companies taking part at the halfway point suggests that the trial is going extremely well. The companies taking part are from a diverse range of sectors: hospitality, manufacturing, healthcare, housing, telecommunications, construction and financial services.
It may seem counterintuitive that working fewer hours results in greater productivity, but there is already mounting evidence that proves the hypothesis. Wherever in the world a four-day week with no loss of pay has been trialled, it has been a win-win for both workers and employers. Productivity has improved, and so has the wellbeing of workers. When Microsoft in Japan trialled the four-day week, it found that productivity increased by 40%. In Iceland—the country, not the company—the largest ever public sector shorter working week trial was an “overwhelming success”, and resulted in 86% of the working population gaining the right to shorten their hours.
Between 2015 and 2019, Iceland ran two large-scale trials of a reduced working week of 35 to 36 hours with no reduction in pay. The analysis of the results, which included 2,500 workers, demonstrates the transformative effects of a shorter working week for both employees and businesses. Productivity and service provision remained the same or improved across the majority of trial workplaces, and worker wellbeing dramatically increased across a range of indicators, from perceived stress and burnout to health and work-life balance. The trials also remained revenue-neutral for both the city council and the Government.
I was therefore pleased to learn that last month South Cambridgeshire District Council became the first UK council ever to proceed with plans for a four-day week. A three-month trial of a four-day week with no loss of pay will begin in January for all desk-based staff, and if it is successful, a trial of the council’s blue-collar workers—such as bin collection crews—will follow next year.
There are other major benefits for businesses that are worth noting, including a reduction in the number of sick days and the ability to retain staff and attract new talent , which is increasingly important in a tight labour market. When Atom Bank, the largest UK four-day-week employer, made the switch, it found that job applications increased by an astonishing 500% in just three months. The four-day, 32-hour working week is a multi-dividend policy which, ultimately, is about giving everyone the time in which to lead a happier and more fulfilled life.
Long working hours are an acute problem in this country. According to the TUC, British workers put in some of the longest full-time hours in Europe, while having one of the least productive economies in comparison and the fewest bank holidays. According to the Health and Safety Executive, 18 million working days were lost in 2019-20 as a result of work-related stress, depression or anxiety. Furthermore, the World Health Organisation has shown that long working hours are killing hundreds of thousands of people globally every year.
It is time for change. The arguments made against the four-day week today are exactly the same arguments that were made against the five-day week 100 years ago, and I am afraid that the evidence just does not back them up: all the evidence shows that a four-day week with no loss of pay would be good for the economy,  good for workers and, indeed, good for the environment. We should not forget the impact that such a move could have in bringing down carbon emissions. One study has suggested that simply working one day less could cause carbon emissions to fall by up to 127 million tonnes per year, which is the equivalent of taking all private cars off the road.
The pandemic has undoubtedly shaken up the world of work. We have already seen a huge rise in remote working, flexible working, part-time work, and yes, four-day working weeks. Change is coming, and the Government and my own party should grasp it. We could be leading the world in moving to a four-day week, and my Bill would enable us to do just that.
The same old arguments about the economy suffering that were made against the introduction of the weekend, holiday pay, maternity pay, the living wage and equal pay are being made again today against a four-day working week. Those arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now, and the growing number of businesses adopting a four-day week successfully in this country are proving them wrong. Long working hours and low wages are no way to live. My Bill includes a clause that will ensure that anyone working beyond a 32-hour working week is paid extra in overtime, in recognition of the falling wages and falling living standards that this country has experienced over the last decade or so.
The movement for a shorter working week is growing in strength and momentum. I am proud to support that movement, and I urge colleagues to support the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for presenting a measure that should single-handedly unite all on these Benches in their belief that there is a real, continuing threat from the prospect of a Labour Government who will be intent on destroying our economy. The hon. Gentleman has articulated one way in which that would happen, and I am delighted to see that he has the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) here to support him this afternoon. The hon. Member for Bootle himself, of course, is a former shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
In his speech, the hon. Gentleman suggested that there were virtues, or could be virtues, in a four-day working week. I do not think anyone disputes that, and there is already a freedom—which the hon. Gentleman recognised—for employers, or other individuals, to work four days a week to limit their working time to 32 hours. Unfortunately, however, that is not what his Bill says. It is described as a
“Bill to amend the Working Time Regulations 1998 to reduce the maximum working week from 48 hours…to 32 hours per week”
—in other words, to prevent people from being able to work for more than 32 hours a week—
“and to provide for overtime pay; and for connected purposes.”
Effectively, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that everyone who is currently working more than 32 hours a week will be prevented from so doing in the future under the provisions of his Bill. If ever one could think of a hand grenade being thrown into the economy, preventing people from being able to work longer hours and forcing them to reduce their hours at a time when  we have very high levels of employment and very low levels of unemployment is probably a good example. When someone is forced to be able to work only four days a week, who is going to fill the gap? Who is going to work during the time in which that person is not working? We are told that there is a crisis in the health service relating to the number of people working in it. If the Bill were passed, the junior doctors to whom the working time regulations were applied in, I think, 2004 would not be allowed to work for more than 32 hours a week. How will that help the national health service? It will not help it at all; in fact, it will undermine its effectiveness.
However, the hon. Gentleman has done us a great service because he has reminded us that the working time directive upon which the 1998 regulations were based emanated from the European Union and that it was implemented in this country under duress because the EU interpreted the working time directive as being a health and safety measure for which there was no veto and it could therefore be proceeded with under qualified majority voting. The present Government are quite rightly committed to supply-side reforms and removing unnecessary regulations upon our workforce, and this is a timely reminder that they could, and in my view should, get to grips with the issue of the working time directive and the working time regulations.
My basis for saying this is that in the period between 1993 and 1997, when the working time directive and the implications flowing from it were being discussed in this country, I was a member of the Health and Safety Commission. The commission produced a series of papers in which it was made quite clear that the working time directive had nothing whatsoever to do with health and safety and that it was all to do with employment protection on the continent of Europe. It was a specious justification of the introduction of these regulations to label them as health and safety regulations merely so that they could be imposed on this country under the qualified majority voting that applied at the time.
So the working time directive has nothing whatsoever to do with health and safety. It is a legitimate issue in relation to employers and employees, and it is certainly an important issue in relation to productivity. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that some of the organisations that have reduced the length of time that their workers work have benefited from more productivity from the workforce, but there is no evidence that making this compulsory would result in higher productivity. All it would do is result in much higher and unbearable costs for employers in the private sector and, significantly, in the public sector.
Once again I say that this is a timely intervention by the hon. Gentleman and his allies on the Labour Benches. I am sure that if his Bill were to be put to a vote today, he would receive overwhelming support from his parliamentary colleagues, but it would not receive any support at all from our side. I am not going to divide the House on this because I am a believer that everybody should have the right to bring in whatever Bill they want to, and I have exercised that right on many occasions. However, it is important to put on record that, were such a Bill to be drafted and brought forward for debate by the hon. Gentleman, it would be hotly opposed by everybody on this side, although we would enjoy the spectacle of seeing many on his own side having to eat  their words. They talk the talk on high growth but obviously a compulsory measure such as this applying to all employers up and down the country would be damaging to growth. It would undermine the right of people to be able to work hard to look after their families and to spend their money as they wish. It would be an impoverishing exercise for so much of our economy and so many of the people engaged in it.
It is also important in a debate such as this that we remind colleagues on our own Front Bench that there is a lot more to be done to deregulate the labour market. The working time directive is now completely surplus to our requirements, and I would like to see a Bill brought forward to repeal the working time regulations and all that flows from them. They have been developed insidiously over the years since 1998. Originally it was said that the directive should deal only with matters such as drivers’ hours, for example, and with the mobile people employed in the transport industry. It was then extended to cover almost everybody with a sedentary occupation in any of those industries and in the early 2000s it was extended to cover doctors as well. The working time directive is in itself responsible for an enormous lack of productivity and potential among our workforce in this country, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to try to goad our Government into action on this point. In the meantime I put on record my strong opposition to everything contained in the Bill.
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Peter Dowd, Kim Johnson, Yasmin Qureshi, Ms Marie Rimmer, Judith Cummins, Mike Amesbury, Tony Lloyd, Ian Byrne, Dan Carden, Sir George Howarth and Mick Whitley present the Bill.
Peter Dowd accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 164).

Public Order Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the Order of 23 May 2022 (Public Order Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Damien Moore.)

Public Order Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 7 - Power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings

“(1) Subsection (4) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State reasonably believes that one or more persons are carrying out, or are likely to carry out, activities related to a protest, and
(b) the condition in subsection (2) or (3) is met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the activities are causing, or are likely to cause, serious disruption to—
(a) the use or operation of any key national infrastructure in England and Wales, or
(b) access to any essential goods, or to any essential service, in England and Wales.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the activities are having, or are likely to have, a serious adverse effect on public safety in England and Wales.
(4) Where this subsection applies and the Secretary of State considers that it is expedient in the public interest to do so, the Secretary of State may bring civil proceedings relating to the activities in the name of the Secretary of State.
(5) Before bringing proceedings under subsection (4) in relation to any activities the Secretary of State must consult such persons (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, having regard to any persons who may also bring civil proceedings in relation to those activities.
(6) The bringing of proceedings by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) in relation to any activities does not affect the ability of any other person to bring civil proceedings in relation to those activities.
(7) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to “activities” does not include a reference to activities carried out or likely to be carried out wholly or mainly in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute.
(8) In this section—
“key national infrastructure” has the same meaning as in section 7 (key national infrastructure);
“trade dispute” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, except that section 218 of that Act is to be read as if—
(a) it made provision corresponding to section 244(4) of that Act, and
(b) in subsection (5), the definition of worker included any person falling within paragraph (b) of the definition of worker in section 244(5) of that Act.”
Brought up, and read the First time.

Jeremy Quin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 8—Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand.
New clause 1—Guidance on locking on—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance to police forces about the protest technique of locking on, which includes—
(a) examples of best practice, and
(b) detailed guidance on addressing new and developing forms of locking on.”
New clause 2—Consolidated protest guidance—
“(1) Within three months of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations issue guidance which consolidates into a single source—
(a) the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice for public order guidance,
(b) the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s operational advice for protest policing, and
(c) the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s protest aide memoire.
(2) The Secretary of State must regularly review the guidance and, if appropriate, must by regulations issue revised consolidated guidance.
(3) The consolidated guidance must include specific updated guidance about the protest technique of locking on.”
New clause 3—National monitoring tool—
“(1) The Secretary of State must develop a consistent national monitoring tool, accessible by all police forces, to monitor the use of or requests for specialist protest officers across England and Wales.
(2) Data collected under this section may be used to evaluate capacity and demand for specialist protest officers across England and Wales.
(3) The monitoring tool must be accessible on a national, regional and local basis.
(4) The monitoring tool must include—
(a) examples of best practice from policing protests across the United Kingdom, and
(b) data on how many trained officers have been required for any protests during the period in which monitoring took place.”
New clause 4—Injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services—
“(1) Upon an application by a person under subsection (4), an injunction may be ordered by a Judge of the High Court against ‘persons unknown’ in order to prevent a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services occasioned by a public procession or public assembly.
(2) The “persons unknown” may be—
(a) anonymous persons taking part in a public process or public assembly who are identifiable at the time of the proceedings; and/or
(b) persons not presently taking part in a public procession or public assembly protest but who will in future join such a public procession or public assembly.
(3) The conditions under which such an injunction may be granted are as follows—
(a) there must be a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed which would result in a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services;
(b) a method of service must be set out in the order which may reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the “persons unknown”;
(c) the “persons unknown” must be defined in the order by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful;
(d) the acts prohibited by the order must correspond with the threatened tort;
(e) the order may only prohibit lawful conduct if there is no other proportionate means of protecting the effective movement of essential goods or essential services;
(f) the terms of the order must set out what act(s) the persons potentially affected by the order must not do;
(g) the terms of the order must set out a defined geographical area to which the order relates; and
(h) the terms of the order must set out a temporal period to which the order relates, following which the order will lapse unless a further order is made upon a further application by the applicant.
(4) An applicant for an injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services may be—
(a) a local authority with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates;
(b) a chief constable with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates; or
(c) a person resident in, or carrying on a business within, the geographical area to which the proposed order relates.
(5) A “serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services” includes a prolonged disruption to—
(a) the effective movement of the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel;
(b) a system of communication;
(c) access to a place of worship;
(d) access to a transport facility;
(e) access to an educational institution; and
(f) access to a service relating to health.”
New clause 5—Definition of “serious disruption”—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘serious disruption’ means—
(a) significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers
of that product, or
(b) prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—
(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(ii) a system of communication,
(iii) a place of worship,
(iv) a place of worship,
(v) an educational institution, or
(vi) a service relating to health.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) a ‘time-sensitive product’ means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them.”
New clause 6—Offences impeding emergency workers—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under sections 1 (Offence of locking on) or 3 (Obstruction etc of major transport works) of this Act, and
(b) the commission of the offence had the effect of impeding an emergency worker in exercising their functions, subject to the exception in subsection (2).
(2) The exception is that the emergency worker was exercising their functions in connection with the offence for which the person is being sentenced or in connection with any action which the court considers to be related to that offence.
(3) The court—
(a) must treat the fact mentioned in subsection (1)(b) as an aggravating factor (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence), and
(b) must state in open court that the offence is so aggravated.
(4) In this section, ‘emergency worker’ means—
(a) a constable;
(b) a person (other than a constable) who has the powers of a constable or is otherwise employed for police purposes or is engaged to provide services for police purposes;
(c) a National Crime Agency officer;
(d) a prison officer;
(e) a person (other than a prison officer) employed or engaged to carry out functions in a custodial institution of a corresponding kind to those carried out by a prison officer;
(f) a prisoner custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;
(g) a custody officer, so far as relating to the exercise of escort functions;
(h) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, fire services or fire and rescue services;
(i) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, search services or rescue services (or both);
(j) a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide—
(i) NHS health services, or
(ii) services in the support of the provision of NHS health services, and whose general activities in doing so involve face to face interaction with individuals receiving the services or with other members of the public.
(5) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (4) whether the employment or engagement is paid or unpaid.
(6) In this section—
‘custodial institution’ means any of the following—
(a) a prison;
(b) a young offender institution, secure training centre, secure college or remand centre;
(c) services custody premises, as defined by section 300(7) of the Armed Forces Act 2006; “custody officer” has the meaning given by section 12(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
‘escort functions’—
(a) in the case of a prisoner custody officer, means the functions specified in section 80(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;
(b) in the case of a custody officer, means the functions specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;
‘NHS health services’ means any kind of health services provided as part of the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006 and under section 1(1) of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
‘prisoner custody officer’ has the meaning given by section 89(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.”
New clause 9—Publication of data about use of stop and search powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish data about the use of the stop and search powers under sections 9 and 10 within three years of—
(a) if sections 9 and 10 come into force on the same date, the date on which they come into force, or
(b) if sections 9 and 10 come into force on different dates, the later of those two dates.
(2) The data published under this section must include—
(a) the total number of uses of stop and search powers by each police force in England and Wales, including whether the powers were used on suspicion or without suspicion,
(b) disaggregated data by age, disability, ethnicity/race, sex/gender and sexual orientation of the people who have been stopped and searched, and
(c) data relating to the outcomes of the use of stop and search powers.”
New clause 10—Review of the use of stop and search powers—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent reviewer to assess and report annually on the use of the stop and search powers under sections 9 and 10.
(2) In carrying out their review, the person appointed under subsection (1) must—
(a) consider the impact of the use of stop and search powers on groups with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and
(b) consult such civil society organisations as appear to the person appointed under subsection (1) to be relevant.
(3) The person appointed under subsection (1) must ensure that a report on the outcome of the review is sent to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable after the completion of the review.
(4) On receiving a report under this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a copy of the report, and
(b) the Government’s response to the findings.
(5) The first report under this section must be completed no later than one year after the date provided for under section [publication of data about use of stop and search powers](1).”
New clause 11—Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services—
“(1) A person who is within a buffer zone and who interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone is guilty of an offence.
(2) A “buffer zone” means an area which is within a boundary which is 150 metres from any part of an abortion clinic or any access point to any building or site that contains an abortion clinic and is—
(a) on or adjacent to a public highway or public right of way,
(b) in an open space to which the public has access,
(c) within the curtilage of an abortion clinic, or
(d) in any location that is visible from a public highway, public right of way, open space to which the public have access, or the curtilage of an abortion clinic.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), ‘interferes with’ means—
(a) seeks to influence,
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies,
(c) impedes or threatens,
(d) intimidates or harasses,
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion,
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means, or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likenesses or personal data of any person without express consent.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) in the first instance—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,
(ii) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(iii) to both; and
(b) on further instances—
(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or to both, or
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to—
(a) anything done in the course of providing, or facilitating the provision of, abortion services in an abortion clinic,
(b) anything done in the course of providing medical care within a GP practice, hospital or other healthcare facility,
(c) the operation of a camera if its coverage of persons accessing or attempting to access an abortion clinic is incidental and the camera or footage is not used for any of the purposes listed in subsection (3), and
(d) a police officer acting properly in the course of their duties.”
New clause 12—Justice impact assessments for Wales—
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any provision of this Act, or any regulations which have been made under this Act, which impact on matters which are devolved to Senedd Cymru.
(2) Within one month of the date on which they are made, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any regulations made under this Act which are not included in the assessment required under subsection (1) which impact on matters which are devolved to Senedd Cymru.
(3) The Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must jointly prepare and publish guidance on the implementation of the provisions on which justice impact assessments have been issued under subsections (1) and (2).”
New clause 13—Intentional harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex—
“(1) A person (P) commits an offence under this section if—
(a) P commits an offence under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 (intentional harassment, alarm or distress), and
(b) P carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of that Act because of the relevant person’s sex In this subsection ‘the relevant person’ means the person to whom P intended to cause, harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not P carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the purposes of sexual gratification.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not P also carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable–
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court, to a fine or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, to a fine, or to both.
(5) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(6) References in this section to P carrying out conduct because of another person’s (B’s) sex include references to P doing so because of B’s presumed sex.”
New clause 14—Harassment, alarm or distress on account of sex—
“(1) A person (P) commits an offence under this section if—
(a) P commits an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 (harassment, alarm or distress), and
(b) P carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of that Act because of the relevant person’s sex.
In this subsection ‘the relevant person’ means the person to whom P intended to cause, or caused, harassment, alarm or distress.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether or not P carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 for the purposes of sexual gratification.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) it does not matter whether or not P also carried out the conduct referred to in section 5(1) of the Public Order Act 1986 because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1).
(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment to a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.
(5) If, on the trial on indictment of a person charged with an offence under subsection (1), the jury find the person not guilty of the offence charged, they may find the person guilty of the basic offence mentioned in that provision.
(6) References in this section to P carrying out conduct because of another person’s (B’s) sex include references to P doing so because of B’s presumed sex.
(7) It is not a defence under this section for P to claim that they could not reasonably have foreseen that their behaviour may constitute an offence.”
New clause 15—Public inquiry into the impact of policing of public order on Black, Asian and minority ethnic people—
“Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the impact of the policing of public order on Black, Asian and minority ethnic people.”
New clause 16—Equality Impact Analyses of provisions of this Act—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act.
(2) A report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act.
(3) A review under this section must consider the impact of the provisions of this Act on—
(a) households at different levels of income,
(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the Government’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) equality in the different nations of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(4) A review under this section must include a separate analysis of each section of the Act, and must also consider the cumulative impact of the Act as a whole.”
New clause 17—Public inquiry into the policing of protests—
“Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, the Secretary of State must set up an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into the policing of public order and protests, including investigation of the use of—
(a) force,
(b) kettling,
(c) police horses,
(d) policing powers contained in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and policing powers contained in this Act.”
Amendment 3, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Amendment 28, clause 1, page 1, line 6, after “they” insert
“, without reasonable excuse, and using a device or substance that impedes detachment”.
This amendment, together with Amendment 30, would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” away from the Defendant and make it an element of the offence. It would also narrow the meaning of “attach” to focus on the use of devices or substances that make removing the protester difficult.
Amendment 29, clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (1)(b) and insert
“that act causes, or is likely to cause, serious disruption to the life of the community, and”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by replacing the current threshold of serious disruption with a higher threshold based on serious disruption to the life of the community (defined in Amendment 32).
Amendment 30, clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 31, clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out
“the maximum term for summary offences”
and insert “three months”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by reducing the maximum penalty for the offence of locking on.
Amendment 32, clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest in a democracy by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(5) For the purposes of subsection 1(b), “serious disruption to the life of the community” means a prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—
(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(ii) a system of communication,
(iii) a place of worship,
(iv) a transport facility,
(v) an educational institution, or
(vi) a service relating to health.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an express requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions when locking on. It also provides detail on the meaning of serious disruption to the life of the community.
Amendment 4, page 2, line 11, leave out clause 2.
Amendment 33, clause 2, page 2, line 13, leave out
“may be used in the course of or in connection with”
and insert “will be used in”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of this offence.
Amendment 5, page 2, line 20, leave out clause 3.
Amendment 6, page 3, line 23, leave out clause 4.
Amendment 7, page 4, line 19, leave out clause 5.
Amendment 8, page 4, line 35, leave out clause 6.
Amendment 34, clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person obstructs the undertaker or a person acting under the authority of the undertaker—
(i) in setting out the lines of any major transport works,
(ii) in constructing or maintaining any major transport works, or
(iii) in taking any steps that are reasonably necessary for the purposes of facilitating the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, or
(b) the person interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus which—
(i) relates to the construction or maintenance of any major transport works, and
(ii) belongs to a person within subsection (5), and
(c) that act causes, or is likely to cause, significant disruption to setting out the lines of, the construction of or the maintenance of the major transport works affected, and
(d) the person intends their act—
(i) to obstruct the undertaker or person acting under the authority of the undertaker as mentioned in paragraph (a) or to interfere with or remove the apparatus as mentioned in paragraph (b), and
(ii) to have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (c) or are reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of this offence to ensure it criminalises only conduct that would cause or be likely to cause serious disruption to major transport works. It would also introduce a requirement of intention or recklessness.
Amendment 35, page 5, line 9, leave out
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that”
and insert
“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that the act was part of a trade dispute away from the Defendant and making it an element of the offence.
Amendment 36, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an explicit requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions.
Amendment 9, page 6, line 42, leave out clause 7.
Amendment 37, clause 7, page 7, line 5, leave out
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that”
and insert
“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by taking the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that the act was part of a trade dispute away from the Defendant and making it an element of the offence.
Amendment 38, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), in determining whether a person has a reasonable excuse, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right of peaceful protest by virtue of Article 10 and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by inserting an explicit requirement to have particular regard to the right to peaceful protest when considering whether an individual has a “reasonable excuse” for their actions.
Amendment 39, page 7, line 18, leave out “to any extent” and insert “to a significant extent”.This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the scope of the offence to prevent it sweeping up minor interference.
Amendment 40, page 7, line 22, after “means” insert “an essential element of”.This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by narrowing the meaning of “key national infrastructure” to exclude inessential elements of infrastructure.
Amendment 51, page 7, line 31, at end insert—
“(j) farms and food production infrastructure.”
Amendment 10, page 8, line 17, leave out clause 8.
Amendment 41, clause 8, page 8, line 24, leave out “or B”.
Amendment 42, page 8, line 27, after “Act)” insert
“, but excludes infrastructure that is not essential for the purposes of transporting goods or passengers by railway”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “rail infrastructure” so as to ensure the offence does not extend to interference with inessential elements.
Amendment 43, page 8, line 39, after “Act)” insert—
“(c) but excludes infrastructure that is not essential for the purposes of transporting goods or passengers by air”.
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “air transport infrastructure” so as to ensure the offence does not extend to interference with inessential elements.
Amendment 44, page 8, line 41, leave out “or in connection with”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 45 to 48, would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence, and reduce uncertainty, by narrowing what amounts to key national infrastructure.
Amendment 45, page 9, line 5, leave out “or in connection with”.See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 46, page 9, line 20, leave out “or in connection with”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 47, page 9, line 35, leave out “or in connection with”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 48, page 10, line 1, , leave out “or in connection with”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 44.
Amendment 49, page 10, line 18, leave out
“‘newspaper’ includes a periodical or magazine.”
This amendment would give effect to a recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to narrow the scope of the offence by narrowing the meaning of “newspaper” so as to prevent it extending to any periodical or magazine.
Amendment 52, page 10, line 18, at end insert–—
“(16) “Farms and food production infrastructure” means—
(a) any infrastructure, used for the commercial growing of crops and horticultural produce or rearing of livestock for human consumption or as an ingredient in items for human consumption; or
(b) any premises on which items for human consumption are processed, produced, or manufactured for commercial purposes; or
(c) any abattoir.”
Amendment 11, page 10, line 20, leave out clause 9.
Amendment 12, page 11, line 1, leave out clause 10.
Amendment 13, page 12, line 29, leave out clause 11.
Amendment 14, page 13, line 9, leave out clause 12.
Amendment 15, page 13, line 33, leave out clause 13.
Amendment 16, page 14, line 6, leave out clause 14.
Amendment 17, page 14, line 15, leave out clause 15.
Amendment 1, page 18, line 7, leave out clause 16.
Amendment 2, page 20, line 15, leave out clause 17.
Amendment 20, page 22, line 11, leave out clause 18.
Amendment 21, page 23, line 12, leave out clause 19.
Amendment 22, page 24, line 12, leave out clause 20.
Amendment 23, page 25, line 20, leave out clause 21.
Amendment 24, page 26, line 9, leave out clause 22.
Amendment 25, page 27, line 1, leave out clause 23.
Amendment 26, page 27, line 8, leave out clause 24.
Amendment 27, page 27, line 26, leave out clause 25.
Amendment 53, page 29, line 33, leave out clause 26.
Amendment 54, page 30, line 28, leave out clause 27.
Amendment 55, page 31, line 8, leave out clause 28.
Amendment 56, page 31, line 23, leave out clause 29.
Amendment 57, page 31, line 30, leave out clause 30.
Amendment 58, page 32, line 10, leave out clause 31.
Government new schedule 1—Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand.
Government amendment 50.

Jeremy Quin: I thank hon. Members who have joined us for this important debate today and I look forward to the lively discussion that we are bound to have over the course of the afternoon. Although there will inevitably be differences of opinion, which I will come on to, I hope we can all agree on the fundamental point that should be underpinning this discussion—namely, that it is completely unacceptable for a selfish minority to wreak havoc on the lives of people going about their daily business. I would like to open the debate by  speaking to the amendments in the Government’s name, and I will respond to other amendments in my closing remarks.
I will also touch on new clause 11, which covers abortion clinic buffer zones. We totally endorse the sentiment behind the new clause, but I look forward to setting out in my summing up why measures in existing legislation combined with the growing use of public space protection orders—PSPOs—can be used and are effective.

Stella Creasy: rose—

Jeremy Quin: I think the hon. Lady will want to hear me out.
We recognise that this is a matter closely associated with issue of abortion, on which people have very strong views across the House. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, there will be a free vote on new clause 11. Members will hear the debate, and I will set out why the current legislation is proportionate and how PSPOs are increasingly being used and are increasingly effective, but this is a matter on which hon. Members will make their own judgment.
Before going further into the debate, it might be helpful if I briefly recap what the Bill does and does not do. This Bill does not criminalise the right to protest, as some hon. Members have said. The right to protest is a fundamental principle of our democracy, and that will never change. Any suggestion that we are intent on interfering with or watering down the right to protest peacefully is simply wrong.
What the Bill does is target acts that cause serious disruption, such as those that wreak havoc on our roads, disrupt thousands of journeys, cost the taxpayer millions and put lives in danger. It does this by giving the police the enhanced powers they need to respond to such disruption and better balance the rights of protesters with the right of the public to go about their daily lives.
I will now speak to Government new clauses 7 and 8, Government new schedule 1 and Government amendment 50. Some of the protest tactics we have seen in recent months have had significant consequences for the public. Protests such as those by Insulate Britain and Just Stop Oil have targeted fuel supply chains and created blockades. Indeed, hon. Members will be familiar with recent images of ambulances, fire services and cars carrying babies to hospital being blocked by the selfish actions of protesters in the name of Just Stop Oil. These tactics are not only seriously disruptive but dangerous.
We have heard the Opposition’s calls to ensure that injunctions are in place to prevent serious disruption, including through new clause 4 tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). It is a pleasure to see her in her place, and I look forward to working with her across this Dispatch Box.
We have seen how effective injunctions can be, and we believe we can build on the current position in which only private persons and local authorities can pursue this legal remedy through the courts. That is why the Government tabled new clauses 7 and 8, new schedule 1 and amendment 50 to provide the Secretary of State with a specific mechanism to apply for an injunction where it is in the public interest to do so because the activity causes serious disruption to key national infrastructure, prevents access to essential goods or services, or has a serious adverse impact on the public.  This will be accompanied by a power of arrest to support swifter enforcement action. This does not affect the right of local authorities or private landowners to apply for an injunction, but it gives the Secretary of State an additional way to act in the public interest where the potential impact is serious and widespread.
These measures will support better co-ordination between the Government, law enforcement, local authorities and private landowners in responding to serious disruptive behaviour. We know injunctions can play a major role in helping to constrain some of the tactics deployed and, as a result, can limit serious disruption. Although I understand the sentiment behind new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Croydon Central, I do not think it achieves the change she seeks, as the law already enables private persons and local authorities to pursue an injunction where they can evidence harm to their rights or interests in civil law. The police already have a range of powers and avenues to manage protest and to act on criminal or antisocial behaviour.
I therefore encourage the hon. Lady not to press her new clause and to support Government new clauses 7 and 8, new schedule 1 and amendment 50.

Stella Creasy: I rise to support all the amendments in the name of the Labour Front Bench, and to speak to new clauses 11, 13 and 14.
I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for respecting the convention that issues around abortion are matters of conscience, and new clause 11 is about abortion because, let us be honest, nobody is praying outside the places where people go to have a hip operation. Nobody offers rosary beads or dead foetuses outside the places people go when they have an ankle injury. This is about women accessing a very specific form of healthcare.
This goes to the heart of the Bill. Whatever the Bill’s merits, it is about protest. At the point at which women are accessing an abortion, they have made a decision and they are not opening themselves up for a debate or further discussion. These women are often in a very vulnerable state, and they want to be able to access basic healthcare.
New clause 11 would not stop free speech on abortion, and it would not stop people protesting. I have regularly been subjected to protests, and new clause 11 would do nothing to stop the protests I have experienced from many of the people involved in this subject. New clause 11 simply says that people should not have a right to protest in another person’s face, and very often these protesters are right up in front of people, at a point when they have made a decision.
For all of us who defend free speech, the simple point is that speech is not free if 50% of the conversation feels harassed, if women feel they have made a decision and they wish to move on. New clause 11 is a tightly drawn amendment, and I pay tribute to the hard work of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and Members on both sides of the House to make sure we have the right legislation. New clause 11 sets out a clear parameter so that both free speech and the rights of everybody in that conversation can be upheld. It is not about picking one side or the other. There are many other things that the Bill is trying to do, and it would  seem egregious to many of us if women were singled out by not having that balance upheld. New clause 11 upholds that balance. People do not have to support abortion to believe that, frankly, there is a time and a place to have that conversation, and it is not when dealing with vulnerable women.
Let me address some of the arguments people make for why this measure is not necessary. The Minister spoke about PSPOs. I am sorry that this is the first time we have had this debate, because I would love to talk to him about my experience of PSPOs. Some suggest this is a minor issue, but it is not. We know from the research that, every year, 100,000 women who try to access abortion services for various reasons, including women who have had miscarriages and therefore need an abortion, are targeted by these protesters. That is half of all women attending these clinics. This is not a minor issue, nor is it a localised one.
The protests we are talking about range from women being given plastic foetuses to women being offered to have people pray over them or for them, being filmed, being shouted at, being called “mum” or “murderer,” and being told to rethink their lifestyle. The point of these protests, as the protesters admit, is not benign. The protesters are not marking the fact that a woman has made a decision; they are trying to change that decision, at a point when a woman has already made that choice.
I pay tribute to Sister Supporter, which has worked with people on the ground to try to protect those women who have made this choice and who now wish to access the service in peace and privacy, without somebody trying to tell them they have to rethink that often very painful, personal decision. Sister Supporter has tried to make the PSPO process work, and we have so few PSPOs in this country because it is an expensive, complicated, long-winded process.
My former colleague in Colchester would say, “PSPOs require proof that women are being harassed before we act. We have to find evidence that people are being harassed. We already have to admit that this intimidation and harassment is taking place.” There is no other part of the law or healthcare where a person has to admit that they are being harassed before there is an intervention.
We recognise that access to healthcare is important. Local authorities have to spend thousands of pounds to get these PSPOs, often repeatedly defending them in the courts. As we see from the numbers, this is a national issue and, therefore, it requires a national solution. Frankly, it requires our local authorities and our local police to support them, and not to say it is acceptable for only Ealing, Bournemouth, Manchester and Twickenham to have gone through this process.

Huw Merriman: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for what she has done to bring us to this position. I am grateful that the Minister has confirmed that this will be a free vote, as it should be.
I support the Public Order Bill because it is about stopping people interfering with the right of others to go about their business. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is at the heart of new clause 11, which is about protecting women who want to go about their lawful business from being harassed? They are emotionally vulnerable, and the decision is hard enough as it is, let  alone with what they have to go through outside the clinic. Does she agree that it is a Conservative principle of the Bill to ensure women have the right to go about their lawful business?

Stella Creasy: I would not deign to comment on or set out Conservative principles, although I have the free speech to do so, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s recognition that this is about balancing rights. This is an omission from the Bill because it is such a specific issue. Let me be clear: PSPOs are not working and new clause 11 is very tightly drawn about abortion clinics themselves. At 28 weeks pregnant. I was subject to sustained campaigns in my town centre. People put up pictures of my head next to dead babies. They told my constituents to stop me and they incited anger and intimidation. This would not be covered by the new clause. That is the free speech debate that we might want to have another day. Perhaps if those protesters had thrown a can of tomato soup at me, the police might not have seen it as a “both sides now” conversation. This is something different. These women have not put themselves up for debate and I understand that. As a public figure, I have put myself up for debate. Obviously, I had not put my unborn child up for debate, which is what those protesters felt that they could do.
This is about when a woman wants to access an abortion. The new clause specifies abortion clinics. It is no more broad than that, because this is a very specific problem. The challenge in this place is that we can dance on the head of a pin having theoretical debates, but it is our constituents who see the reality. They see the people shouting at these women. They see the women who are frightened, scared and vulnerable, who just want to make a decision in peace—who just want to go about their business.
That is why this amendment has such support from across the House, from among the royal colleges, and from among those who work with women and campaigners, particularly organisations such as the British Medical Association and the Fawcett Society. It is also why there have been so many emails pouring into our inbox. A person does not have to be a supporter of abortion to think that, at that point, we probably need to protect that person. A person does need to be a supporter of abortion to think that, if something is stopping women or is designed to deter them at a point when they have made a decision to have an abortion, we need to step in and not leave it to local authorities to find the money to cover the court costs, or even for that to be part of the decision they are making.
I understand that the Minister will talk against this measure. He needs to explain why, when 50 clinics have been targeted, only five have managed to get PSPOs. The current legislation is not satisfactory in dealing with that balance. It leaves it to chance and creates a postcode lottery of the protection that people recognise is required—whether or not they support abortion and whether or not they think about free speech.
I ask the Minister to listen to women. Women in their droves are asking for this protection for their sisters who are making this decision. They should not be shouted at when they are accessing it. Let them make that decision in privacy. If we consider abortion to be a human right, do not ask them to run a gauntlet to get one, which is what is happening now. I hope that  colleagues across the House will recognise the thought, care and attention that has gone into this new clause, the widespread support across the House for acting and for not leaving it to local authorities to have to deal with these issues, and the fact that the abortion debate must continue, but that there is a time and a place for it.
Let me turn now to new clauses 13 and 14, which, again, I hope will have cross-party support. They reflect a concern that we need to tackle the experience of women on our streets, and, in particular, the fact that 24,000 women a day experience street harassment in this country. For too long that has become normalised. For too long, we have taught young girls ways to minimise their exposure rather than challenging those people who do it. For too long, we have asked the questions, “Did you have your headphones on?” “Were you wearing a short skirt?” What did you say when that person said that?” We do that rather than recognising this as a form of harassment.
I welcomed the words of the Prime Minister when she said that violence against women and girls does not have to be inevitable. She said:
“Women should be able to walk the streets without fear of harm, and perpetrators must expect to be punished.”
She also said:
“It is the responsibility of all political leaders, including us in Westminster and the Mayor of London, to do more.”
I know that the Mayor of London wants to do more because I have been working with him for many years on the campaign to learn from our police forces who treat misogyny as a form of hate crime and use that to identify the perpetrators of these crimes. I know, too, that there is support across the House for doing that. There is no other crime that happens on such a scale on a daily basis where we have not made progress. I welcome the fact that there is agreement in this place that we need to tackle street harassment. As ever, when it comes to upholding a woman’s rights and freedoms and basic ability to go about her daily business, the challenge today is that it goes on the backburner when something else turns up. It is something that we will get round to eventually. It is something that is terribly complicated, when shouting at statues is not.
I ask the Minister today to commit to joining all of us in saying, “Enough is enough, and we will legislate and legislate promptly.” We should not be at a point in 2022 going into 2023 where thousands of women are still experiencing street harassment. Over their lifetime, seven in 10 women will experience sexual harassment in public. It is clear that those who engage in these behaviours often escalate to further and more serious crimes. Recognising sexual harassment and tackling it, which is what the police forces who are treating misogyny as a form of hate crime have been able to do, offers us valuable lessons about how we can move forward.
I recognise what the Law Commission said, and I recognise that the debate has moved on, but having a standalone offence, which identifies where women are being targeted for street harassment, would help us to gather the data and send that very powerful message that no woman should have to look behind her or carry her keys in her hand just because she wants to go out and buy a pint of milk. That is a daily experience.

Fay Jones: My concern about street harassment is that it could be too broad. I am particularly concerned about the rising prevalence  of cyber flashing, and I very much urge the Government to pursue their intention to make that a criminal offence through the Online Safety Bill. Does the hon. Lady agree that we are at risk of going too broad and too shallow and not focusing on individual crimes such as cyber flashing?

Stella Creasy: I agree that cyber flashing is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I caution the hon. Lady to understand the importance of recognising where harassment is targeted at women; it does not have to be sexual to be harassment. There is a risk here that we deny the experience of women from minority communities of the multiple ways in which they are harassed. A couple of years ago, a gentleman was going around my community targeting Muslim women, pulling off their hijabs. That was both Islamophobic and misogynistic—he was not targeting Muslim men. Yet, under our current hate crime framework, we ask the victims to pick a particular box to tick to identify a crime. The evidence from the areas of the country where they are using this approach shows that where we have that understanding of how misogyny motivates crime, we see the victim as a whole and victims themselves have much more confidence to come forward. I recognise the hon. Lady’s concern about being specific in law, but there is a really important issue for all of us not to focus purely on sexual behaviour, but to recognise what is driving these crimes: it is power, entitlement and privilege that some men have—it is mainly men who do this—to target women for crimes.
New clause 13 looks at intentional harassment. New clause 14, which I hope the Minister will address in his comments, looks at foreseeable harassment. That is a really critical issue and why it is so important to get these new clauses accepted to help change the culture. If the harassment is foreseeable, it is recognising that there should be no defence, such as, “I thought she would enjoy being groped by me.” “I thought she would like it if I followed her down the road.” “I thought that she would find it flattering.” In 2022, we should not be breeding a generation of men who think that that is acceptable. I promise the Minister that I will stop campaigning on these issues when I go to a wedding and the bride gets up and says, “He tried to get me in the back of a van. I thought that it was the most fantastic thing ever and I immediately had to get to know this man.” That does not happen, but that is often an everyday experience for many women in this country—to be followed, to be targeted and to be hassled.
Finding ways to recognise that in law and not give someone the defence of saying, “I don’t know why she was upset by what I said” is what new clause 14 does. The Minister may tell me that he has better ideas. I know the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has an important Bill coming up. What all of us are looking for is a commitment to act promptly and not to leave this for another five or 10 years—the Law Commission review dates back to the heady days of 2016—and also to not give people a defence that women themselves are being difficult by wanting simply to go about their freedoms and not be hassled.

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Eleanor Laing: The right hon. Gentleman cannot intervene because he was not here at the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. He  can intervene later, but he cannot intervene halfway through a speech when he was not here at the beginning of it. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is proposing amendments that everybody wants to hear about, but she has held the Floor for 15 minutes. We have three hours for this debate and I have more than 20 people who wish to speak, so I have to appeal for brevity. I would rather not put on a time limit, because that curtails debate. I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate the position of everybody else in the Chamber who also has to have an opportunity to speak.

Stella Creasy: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I promise I was just about to wind up. I hope the Minister will address the issue in new clause 14 about foreseeable harassment and that perhaps over the course of the debate he will rethink his opposition to new clause 11. I know many of us across the House would welcome that.

Caroline Nokes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having indicated from the Dispatch Box that this is to be a free vote; that is an important principle when considering new clause 11 specifically. I must gently say to him that I am a little disappointed that I have to speak to the issue without hearing his arguments on why the new clause is not necessary, although of course I will be here for the winding-up speeches to listen to his arguments then.
I will speak briefly on the hon. Lady’s new clauses 13 and 14 on street harassment. That is an important issue. We have seen work on violence against women and girls, started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I am blessed to have sitting next to me my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is bringing me up to speed on some of the more recent work done in the Home Office by her successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and now by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). That is quite a list of female Members of this House who have sought over many years to get legislation on to the statute book so that we can tackle public sexual harassment effectively.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is still doing great work in this area, and I look forward to his private Member’s Bill. However, we had the recommendations from the Law Commission many months ago, we have had a Home Office consultation, and it feels to me that we are making very slow progress. Meanwhile, thousands of young women, particularly those in school uniform, are still subject to public sexual harassment—and indeed other types of harassment, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow pointed out.
There is great work going on in police forces up and down the country, including in my own county of Hampshire, which is no surprise given that we have a great female chief constable who has been leading on this issue and a female police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, who has spoken extensively up and down  the country and is the lead police and crime commissioner on violence against women and girls. However, the reality is that progress has been too slow.
On new clause 11, abortion is an important and emotive issue, and I do not in any way undermine the profoundly held beliefs people have on it, but the new clause, as the hon. Lady has pointed out, is about a woman’s right to access healthcare. It is a decision that they will have made in some instances many weeks before they ever attend a clinic.
I will speak of the experience we have had relatively locally to my constituency. Just a few weeks ago, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council successfully introduced a buffer zone in six streets surrounding the British Pregnancy Advice Service clinic in Bournemouth. That has come at significant expense to local authority taxpayers. I welcome its contribution to the patchwork of protections that we see in five areas of the country, but it is a patchwork; five areas have successfully brought in public space protection orders, but there are 50 clinics where they might be of benefit.
Enormous work has been done by colleagues on both sides of the House to bring forward protections for women—but protections from what? Specifically, in the consultation in Bournemouth, which was completed by more than 2,000 people, 75% of whom showed that they supported a buffer zone, it was protection from intimidation, protection from being followed and protection from being filmed. I think we would all in this House want to see people who are accessing healthcare being protected in those ways.
Service providers have consistently sought to use the laws that I know my hon. Friend the Minister will point out are already available and are suggested by the Home Office, but even where individual groups have been dealt with through the courts, other individuals have come forward and the protests outside the clinics have simply not stopped. Annually, about 100,000 women are targeted in that way—abused and harassed while they are just trying to access healthcare that is perfectly legal.

Steve McCabe: I apologise for not having been here earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was dealing with other parliamentary business. I have a clinic on Station Road in my constituency where, after a lot of hard work, residents secured a public space protection order on 7 September. Because of the concern about the legal considerations and the consultation, it was drawn quite tightly, and its effect has been simply to push the protesters further down the road so that, ironically, they are now nearer to the local school. That makes it easier for gentlemen my age and sometimes older to approach 13 and 14-year-old girls and ask them if they know where babies come from and what God’s view of pregnancy might be. Normally, I would call anyone doing that a bit of a pervert, but apparently these people are speaking on behalf of some higher order. Does that not demonstrate that the need for communities to individually pursue PSPOs at local expense is not a satisfactory way to proceed, and that we need some national legislation that everyone can draw upon?

Caroline Nokes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need national legislation; we do not want a piecemeal approach or to push the problem to a different  area or from one clinic where a public space protection order has been put in place to a clinic where protest may still be legal. It is imperative that we have a coherent national approach and that we protect women from that sort of harassment.
I hope the Minister will confirm what further action the Home Office will take in the event that this new clause falls today. I hope it will be successful; I hope this House can come together and recognise the benefit that the new clause will provide, and that we can make some progress on the issue.
I will speak briefly about the finances. I referred to the cost to a local authority and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) indicated that in his constituency it will have been expensive for the council to bring a PSPO forward. Too often, councils face legal challenges from campaign groups with very deep pockets, which are potentially not even funded from this country.
I vividly remember going to a sixth form college just outside my constituency at the start of the summer and talking to the female students there, girls aged between 16 and 18. They talked to me specifically about abortion, because they were scared that they would see their right to access healthcare being eroded. They asked whether I thought the overturning of Roe v. Wade would travel across the Atlantic and impact us here.
At the time I said, “No, I don’t”, but since then I have watched the deep pockets of largely American-funded campaigns opposing our local councils when they seek to bring legal orders to protect women from harassment. How can I now look at those teenagers and say, “Of course the overturning of Roe v. Wade won’t come here. Of course the American influence will not impact your right to access healthcare in this country”? It is about time that this country and this Government were prepared to step up where the United States has stepped back. That is why I will be supporting new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It is imperative that we send a message to women—I was going to say young women, but it is actually to all women in this country—that we are on their side.

Joanna Cherry: I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), which arise from the legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They are amendments 28 to 31, 33, 34 to 36, 37 to 40 and 41 to 49, and also amendments 12 to 15, which appear first in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), and 1 and 2.
I remind hon. Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords, and we undertake scrutiny of the human rights implications of all Bills. I speak here in my capacity as the Chair of the Committee rather than in my personal capacity. I have great sympathy for new clause 11—similar measures are being taken in the Scottish jurisdiction—but, as my Committee did not have the chance to consider it, I will not be speaking about that new clause.
The Public Order Bill contains further significant changes to the law on public order in England and Wales, following on from those introduced in the Police,  Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is obvious from my accent that I am a Scottish MP. Despite the fact that this law only applies in England and Wales, it is of interest to a lot of Scots, because they come to London to protest—I see the Minister laughing, but it is the truth, and many of us have been doing it for years, since before we were elected to this House.

Jeremy Quin: I welcome that. I am a firm believer that we are stronger together and a firm believer in the Union. I always welcome hearing the views of Scots people in London, and indeed of English people who wish to protest in Edinburgh.

Joanna Cherry: I suspect the Minister will still hear our views after we become independent, so I would not get too upset about that.
During the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Joint Committee looked very carefully at a large volume of responses and heard from two panels of witnesses about the issue of the public order provisions. The Minister has said the stated intention of the Bill is to strengthen police powers to tackle dangerous and highly disruptive protest, but we think the measures go beyond that, to the extent that we believe they pose an unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest. That was the conclusion of the Committee’s report dated 17 June, in which we proposed the amendments that I am speaking to today.

Wendy Chamberlain: I wanted to reflect on the point that it is not just about our constituents in Scotland being concerned about the provisions in the Bill. One of the fundamental parts of policing in the UK is mutual aid, so there will be considerations for Police Scotland in relation to the Bill, if it is passed, when we have police officers from Scotland attending protests in other parts of the UK.

Joanna Cherry: That is a very good point and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making it.
It is a matter of regret that when the Government responded to our cross-party report they said:
“Any chilling effect on the right to protest, damage to the UK’s reputation, or encouragement of other nations seeking to crack down on peaceful protest is more likely to arise from the misleading commentary on the PCSC Act and this Bill”
than anything else. No, Minister. That is not the case. The Committee’s conclusions are not misleading commentary. They are the conclusions of a cross-party Committee of this House, informed by evidence from many different sources and advice from our own legal experts on the European convention on human rights, to which, thank God, the UK is still a signatory and which is still enforceable under the Human Rights Act 1998, which seems, thankfully, safe for the time being.
Before I turn to the amendments, I want to quickly make the point that the criminal law and the powers of the police already allow for action to be taken against violent protest and disruptive non-violent protest. That is addressed in detail in paragraph 18 of our report, where we list all the existing provisions under the criminal law of England and Wales that cover the situations about which the Minister says he is concerned. So not only do we think that the Bill is an attack on the  fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but we believe that it is unnecessary and simply replicating existing law.
Our first tranche of amendments deal with the new offences set out in clauses 1 and 2—the proposed offences of “locking on” and
“being equipped to lock on”.
The purpose of those amendments is to try to water down what we consider to be far too stringent positions. We are particularly concerned about the reversal of the burden proof, putting it on the accused. The purpose of our amendments is to reverse that and put that burden on the prosecution, as is consistent with the presumption of innocence and therefore with article 6 of the ECHR. So amendments 28 to 33 would narrow the scope of clauses 1 and 2 and improve safeguards against violation of convention rights.
We believe that the offence of obstructing major transport works in clause 6 is so widely drafted that it could easily criminalise the peaceful exercise of rights under articles 10 and 11, so our amendments 34 to 36 would narrow its scope, including by introducing a requirement of intent and removing the unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof.
We think the proposed offence of interfering with “key national infrastructure” is too widely drawn and thus risks criminalising, without justification, behaviour that would fall within the provisions of articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Amendments 37 to 49 would narrow its scope and remove the unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof.
The proposal to extend stop-and-search powers to cover searches for articles connected with protest-related offences risks exposing peaceful protesters and other members of the public to intrusive encounters with the police without sufficient justification. We would like the utilisation of these new powers to be carefully monitored. In that respect, I note with approval the terms of new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova).
The most concerning part of the Bill is the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. That is a highly exceptional power and will inevitably give rise to the risk of arbitrary or discriminatory use. Such powers have previously been authorised only in respect of serious violence and terrorism. The Committee believes their introduction in response to problems caused by disruptive protest would be disproportionate and inconsistent with the right to engage in peaceful protest. That is why we tabled amendments 12 to 15, which are supported by other hon. Members present and have quite a significant measure of cross-party support beyond the Joint Committee.
We would like to see the serious disruption prevention orders taken out of the Bill completely, along with the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. We believe that they would also result in interference with the legitimate peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of speech and the right to freedom of assembly. We therefore support amendments 1 and 2.
Finally, we have heard a lot from the current Government about the importance of freedom of speech. The Bill is about freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Sometimes when people exercise their right of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, it can be a bit annoying to the rest of us and a bit disruptive. Sometimes I have become involved in demonstrations, not as a demonstrator but as somebody trying to get somewhere, and I have found them annoying and disruptive, but to quote Salman Rushdie:
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to have the opportunity to support new clause 11, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). She has got into a bit of a scrape because she said something silly, but those of us who know her know that she is an extremely committed parliamentarian and very public spirited, and I hope that order will be restored in that department as soon as possible.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on new clause 11 and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for supporting it. I note that SNP Members support the new clause, although I am not sure whether they will vote on it—they might decide that it is an English measure—but it is interesting that similar measures are being considered in Scotland.
I am grateful to the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), who kindly saw me at short notice yesterday about this matter. The Government may well oppose this new clause. I hope they do not, but I know they are seized of the issue and are giving it consideration. I will listen very carefully to what he has to say about it later.
“Clinic harassment” is the term used to describe the presence outside abortion clinics of groups who seek to dissuade and deter women from accessing healthcare that is their right under our law. Many people would call them protests, but mere protest is not the purpose of the activity and the groups who organise them do not call them protests. It is not about politics or campaigning; it is about stopping individual women from accessing their legal rights. New clause 11 would simply introduce a statutory buffer zone around any location where abortion services or advice are provided, making it illegal to carry out such activities as those eloquently described by the hon. Member for Walthamstow.
We are told that the scale of the problem is small and does not require a national response. That is false. Every year, around 100,000 women are treated by a clinic targeted by these groups. In the last three weeks alone, at least 15 clinics across the country have had people outside, including clinics based in hospitals, GP surgeries and in residential areas. That has impacted hundreds of women’s care and psychological wellbeing.
We are also told that the police and councils already have powers to restrict harmful protests. If that is true, why are they still happening? The fact is that abortion providers have proactively tried to use all the laws suggested by the Home Office to stem the problem, but even where individual protesters and groups have been dealt with by the courts and local authorities, the presence outside clinics has not stopped.
Let us be absolutely clear: we are not debating the principle of whether these so-called protests should be banned; they already are banned in certain places, and the principle of that has been supported by the House. We are just asking whether the existing statutory arrangements—the public spaces protection orders—used by councils to introduce buffer zones around individual clinics are effective. Only five out of 50 targeted clinics are protected.
There are three issues relating to PSPOs: they create a random patchwork of protections, which is inadequate; they are expensive to introduce and very difficult to uphold in the courts; and crucially, they can be introduced only with evidence that harassment is taking place. I made this point to my hon. Friend the Minister last night, and it is a painful thing for him to have to accept, but it is the Government’s policy that women should be harassed outside abortion clinics before a PSPO can be issued. Can the House think of any other policy that requires women to be harassed before the Government or the local authority do something that is perfectly justified? That is an immoral basis for PSPOs.

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, as indeed he did yesterday evening. I was concerned and looked into the matter. The antisocial behaviour statutory guidance states that a PSPO can be made by a council if it is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the activity or behaviour carried out, or likely to be carried out, in a public space has had, or is likely to have, a detrimental impact. I hope that gives him some reassurance that if activity is anticipated and people are concerned that it may take place, there is a means whereby a PSPO may be taken out. He might not consider that a perfect scenario, but where an activity is foreseeable, action can be taken in advance.

Bernard Jenkin: I say rather wryly to my hon. Friend, “Good try.” But it is not really adequate, is it? All our local authorities are under huge spending pressure and do not want to spend money on drafting orders and so on, so what local authority will be preoccupied with this problem unless there is a problem? The strength of the case for implementing a PSPO is supported by evidence of likelihood, which will only be evident if the activity has already happened. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister has not really addressed the point, although I commend him for making a good attempt.
We are also told that these groups are only quietly praying and that there is no harassment involved. Well, the hon. Member for Walthamstow told us about what happens, and sometimes people attend in very large numbers.
My final comment on this may answer points that my hon. Friend the Minister will make later. I have been involved for years in discussions with the Home Office, and here I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) for the assiduous attention she gave us as she wrestled with this problem, which I know has vexed her. Although she never persuaded the Government to accept a previous amendment, the sincerity of her engagement with us was wonderful, and I am grateful. So finally, we are also told that our amendment contravenes protesters’ human rights. Well, I note that the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh  South West (Joanna Cherry), does not think that is the case—albeit that the Committee has not actually considered this amendment.
We have to recognise that rights have to be balanced, and the exercise of one person’s rights are very often to another person’s detriment. We have to strike a balance, and my argument is that new clause 11 strikes the right balance. The amendment would not stop people sharing their opinions about the vexed issue of abortion. It balances the rights of people who oppose abortion with the rights of women to access healthcare confidentially and free from harassment and intimidation. It does not ban protest; it simply moves it down the road to preserve the space immediately outside the clinic for women seeking care, and for nurses and doctors providing that care. In Committee, when asked about this directly by the Minister, rights groups did not oppose new clause 11. Canada, Australia, Spain, Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland all have comparable laws in place or are in the process of introducing them.
I need not detain the House any longer. If the House does not support this amendment tonight, the argument will carry on until an acceptable means of protecting women exercising their legal rights is found. I am grateful to the Government for allowing a free vote on the matter, which is right and proper in the circumstances.

John Martin McDonnell: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). I rise to support a range of amendments—amendments 1, 2, 11 and 12, new clauses 9, 11 and 13 to 16, and most of those that stand in the names of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her continuing campaign on this issue, and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the eloquence with which she spoke on it.
I believe that we should consider carefully the implications of any piece of legislation for our constituents. We must ask ourselves who will be affected, and how? I will discuss specifically how the Bill will have a dramatic effect on my constituents. In my constituency there has been a 40-year campaign against Heathrow expansion, particularly against the third runway. According to the airport itself, 4,000 homes will be either demolished or rendered unliveable as a result of air and noise pollution. Ten thousand people will lose their homes. There is a history of peaceful protest against this by my constituents. Their protests have involved demonstrating noisily, linking arms, marching, sitting down to block the roads into Heathrow and blocking the tunnel into Heathrow. They have involved camping in the local field with Climate Camp, and yes, they have involved training in locking on, to ensure that if someone’s home is threatened with demolition, they can lock themselves to the home.
Yes, the existing law has been used against my constituents, and people have taken it on the chin. The existing law has proved to be effective in many ways in ensuring that people understand the law and know when they cross the limit of the law. I remind the House that there are also specific laws relating to airports.
This campaign demonstrated to me how the democratic process, both inside and outside Parliament, works effectively, because it was successful. It persuaded the  Conservative party to change its policy, and the party’s then leader, Mr Cameron, to say:
“No ifs, no buts, no third runway.”
We were disappointed when he later caveated that, saying that the commitment would last for only one Parliament. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that peaceful demonstration in support of the campaign actually did change Government policy, and I believe that it reinforced people’s appreciation of our democratic system.
The threat of a third runway has not gone away. The new discussions taking place on various Benches mean that people are now planning a new wave of protests to protect their homes. In fact, it has gone beyond a nimby campaign, because it is now also about tackling the climate change emergency that is happening now.

David Simmonds: I entirely share the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and his opposition to a third runway at Heathrow, but does he acknowledge that the reason the campaign has succeeded is the intelligent and appropriate use of the legal process, through a series of injunctions and challenges brought by the London Borough of Hillingdon, rather than the protests around Heathrow airport itself?

John Martin McDonnell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent. I congratulate Hillingdon Council, which has worked on a cross-party basis, and commend it for the work it has done with other local authorities of all political parties. I do not think, however, that the legal process was sufficient. What changed the minds of politicians— of David Cameron and the Conservative party—was the mobilisation of mass demonstrations and mass public support. I had been campaigning on the issue for 30 years before we saw that shift in policy.
Through those campaigns, the residents are simply trying to protect their homes, their communities and their way of life, but as a result of the specifics of this legislation, they could be criminalised. In fact, this legislation could have been specifically designed to prevent campaigning in my constituency against the third runway. Our campaign is a protest associated with national infrastructure and is specific to airports, both of which are identified in the legislation. It involves protests that are aimed at “serious disruption”, because we block roads that enter the airport, and virtually all the roads around the villages in my constituency go there. We have also blocked the tunnel at Heathrow and we have been involved in locking on, arms linking and the occupation of land and property.
I see in the legislation that there is a defence of “reasonable excuse”, so is protecting one’s home and one’s community a reasonable excuse under this legislation? Now, under this legislation, for seeking to protect their homes and to persuade Governments and political parties to change their policy, my constituents will face arrest, unlimited fines, imprisonment for up to 51 weeks, tagging, restrictions on their ability to attend other forms of protest, surveillance and stop and search without suspicion.
Elements of the legislation degenerate into farce, because anyone in my constituency wandering off to the Harmondsworth allotments with a spade could be arrested for carrying. When we legislate, there are foreseen and, sometimes, unforeseen consequences. The foreseen consequences here are dangerous. The good, responsible and concerned citizens who are exercising in my constituency their time-honoured rights of expression, assembly and protest are likely to be criminalised by the legislation if it goes through. Will it intimidate them? Yes, it will. Will it deter them? No, it will not.
That is why I am supporting these amendments. The legislation flies in the face of the democratic rights and processes that we have held dear and that have proved successful in holding Governments to account and restraining the power of the state. That is why I believe it is critical for these amendments to be made. Failing that, the Bill should be opposed.

Fiona Bruce: I rise to oppose new clause 11 on the basis of its grave implications—indeed, threats—to freedom of thought, conscience, speech, belief and assembly. Let us be clear: new clause 11 flies directly in the face of those freedoms. It has far wider implications than on abortion alone; it potentially criminalises even those who simply stand peaceably near abortion clinics, and who do so mainly on the basis of their faith-based beliefs. I believe that the clause contravenes human rights. Notably, for example, article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”
The broad wording of new clause 11 is open to such wide interpretation, particularly the words “seeks to influence”, that it could well catch virtually any activity. The proposed criminalisation of influencing is imprecise, unclear and unpredictable in its effect and potential impact, which contravenes the basic principle of certainty of the rule of law. Certainty is vital so that citizens can tailor their behaviour and remain within the law’s boundaries. Could a social worker advising a confused teenager going to an abortion clinic be seen as influencing within the meaning of this clause and therefore be at risk of criminal liability? This new clause fails the test of certainty and should be rejected for that reason alone.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am listening carefully to what she is saying, which I know reflects beliefs of great sincerity. Does that mean, however, that she is against the existing law that allows local authorities to ban those same activities around abortion clinics, for example, on a selective basis? It seems to me that the House has already accepted that principle. If she cannot accept that principle, we really are on a different page.

Fiona Bruce: I have spoken against that principle on a number of occasions in this place and I will come on to explain why.
The wording of new clause 11 could even catch those who are quietly praying, but when did it become against the law in this country to pray? Unfortunately, five councils have now defined protest as including the word  “prayer”. During court proceedings, that has even been confirmed to include silent prayer. That is a grave development that we in this House, more than anyone, must stand against. Staggeringly, it would effectively mean criminalising the affairs going on within the privacy of an individual’s mind. Yet freedom of thought is an absolute, unqualified right. As the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories said earlier today in response to the urgent question, peaceful protest is a “fundamental part” of UK society.
Whatever our individual views on abortion, we must stand against new clause 11. Otherwise, we risk opening the door to discrimination even more widely. Why not have buffer zones around political conferences? A young Hongkonger told me yesterday that when she attended the recent Conservative party conference, she was “scared” of accessing the conference centre because of the aggressive behaviour of political opponents around it, yet there is no suggestion of having buffer zones there, and nor should there be. As MPs, we would be aghast if we risked a fine and imprisonment simply for handing out a campaign leaflet containing our political views on the street and seeking to influence others at election time. No: new clause 11 is specifically targeted at those with faith-based views and we should be equally aghast at it.
Of course, harassment or intimidation around abortion clinics—or anywhere—has to be addressed, although in more than a quarter of a century of people quietly gathering around abortion clinics, there have been relatively few, if any, reports of that and there are already several pieces of legislation that could tackle it if needed. The Offences against the Person Act 1861, the Public Order Act 1986, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was passed only this year, all provide sufficient powers to tackle harassment and intimidation. This addresses the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin): rather than creating new and unnecessary laws, the police’s and our efforts should be on ensuring that they and the prosecution use the powers that they already have.
This new clause goes further and potentially criminalises peaceable gatherings. Indeed, looking at the wording of the new clause, it is perfectly possible to see an argument being made that just one person standing alone quietly near a clinic could be guilty of the criminal offence proposed in it. Widely or poorly drafted legislation, as here, can have serious unintended consequences, as we have seen in recent years. During the pandemic, Rosa Lalor, a 76-year-old grandmother, was arrested, prosecuted and charged for nothing less than praying and walking outside an abortion centre. It took over a year before Merseyside police force dropped the charges, noting that her actions were completely within the law. For her, however, the punishment was the process, despite being completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
Too often, in recent years, the mere expression of unpopular viewpoints has been interpreted, or rather misinterpreted, as automatically being abusive or harassing under the Public Order Act 1986, due to the broad discretionary powers the police have. We must stand against this. We have seen numerous examples of street preachers and others arrested for nothing more than peacefully expressing traditional views in public. When arrested and prosecuted, it is very rare for this to lead to  conviction, but by the time they are vindicated the damage is done to the individual subjected to a prolonged criminal process, to the public’s confidence in policing and, indeed, to freedom of speech. Such miscarriages of justice have an abiding chilling effect, leading many—indeed, many thousands of people—across our country today to self-censor deeply-held views, which is a problem far more widespread than is currently recognised and that will no doubt be exacerbated by new clause 11.

Stella Creasy: Will the hon. Member give way?

Fiona Bruce: I am just about to conclude.
One of the main reasons freedom of speech and thought are treasured and rightly protected in law is so that they can be used precisely for the purposes of influence. The free and frank exchange of viewpoints is the lifeblood of a genuinely democratic society. Rather than seeking to erode this most precious principle, we should be seeking instead to strengthen the law, to put it beyond doubt that freedom of speech—and, indeed, of belief—when peaceably expressed should never be a criminal offence. We must stand against this here today. Our cherished freedoms of thought, conscience, belief, speech and assembly have been hard fought for, and our democracy depends on their robust protection.

Sarah Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), although I respectfully disagree with her position on this, and I will come to that shortly. I also welcome the Minister to his post.
I do not think anybody in this House was not deeply irritated by the sight of an ambulance having to turn around and go a different route because of protesters glued to the road, and I do not think there are many people in this House, when they saw protesters throwing soup at a van Gogh painting, who did not at least question whether that action had helped or hindered the cause of climate change. We all passionately believe in the right to protest, do we not? But we all understand that our fundamental freedoms are always balanced with the need to ensure business can carry on in its usual way.
That is why I thank the police for their response to the protesters who blocked the ambulance. They arrested 26 people for wilful obstruction of a highway and removed people glued to the road. Wilful obstruction is an offence that can carry a prison sentence. I also thank the police for the way in which they dealt with the incident in the National Gallery. Two people have been charged with criminal damage, which is an offence that can carry prison sentence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you may ask yourself why, if the police were quick to respond, quick to arrest and quick to charge, we are debating a Public Order Bill to create a raft of new powers to tackle protest, after we have only just finished debating another Bill—the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022—which has introduced another raft of new provisions against protest.

Jeremy Quin: Is the hon. Lady therefore fully satisfied that the powers that exist are fully complete and fully perfect in all respects? Is she satisfied that police officers will be taken from her constituency to police central London to guard the public from protests? Should we not be taking stronger action?

Sarah Jones: I thank the Minister for his intervention, and I will shortly come on to speak about the powers that already exist and what I think we need to do to make sure that we have the best system we can have.
I think the reason we are here debating this legislation is that we are not currently governed by grown-ups who understand the serious and delicate balance between policing and protest. We are governed by people who seek to win through division, by pitting one group against another and by wilfully threatening the delicate balance of policing by consent that marks out our form of policing from French, Spanish or Italian paramilitary-style police forces.
On a wider point briefly, if I may, where I wonder are the Government’s priorities when it comes to policing and crime more generally? Why is the Home Secretary doing nothing on the appallingly low charge rates for rape and sexual offences? Why is the Home Secretary doing nothing about the worrying levels of violent crime? What about the thousands of criminals going unpunished, or the victims withdrawing from the investigation process because they do not believe they will see justice? The people’s priorities are not this Government’s priorities, and that is the sad truth.
This careful balance between the right to protest, to speak or to gather and the rights of others to go about their daily business is complicated. It is paramount that we protect vital public infrastructure, our national life and community from serious disruption, but it is also vital that we ensure the right to freedom of speech and the right to protest. We believe that this Bill gets that balance wrong.
Many of the provisions in this Bill in effect replicate laws already in place that the police can and do already use. It is already an offence to obstruct a highway—an offence that can lead to a prison sentence. There is already an offence of criminal damage or conspiracy to cause criminal damage, which can also lead to a prison sentence. Public nuisance is an offence, and that can lead to a prison sentence. Aggravated trespass is an offence, which can also lead to a prison sentence. In 2021, 293 charges were brought against 117 Insulate Britain activists for public nuisance, criminal damage and wilful obstruction of the highway, and many protesters at oil terminals have been charged with aggravated trespass in the last year.
If we look further back into history, we find examples of peaceful lock-on protests and of the police making good use of the powers available to them when they needed to. At Greenham Common peace camp, for example, the police did intervene when they needed to, and they arrested and charged people. We could ask the Prime Minister, because she was there. Only last week, the Home Secretary, before tweeting that the police needed extra powers on protest, congratulated the police on making over 300 arrests. The flaw in the argument is gaping.

Edward Leigh: If new clause 11 is agreed to, will the Labour party vote against Third Reading?

Sarah Jones: I will come to new clause 11 shortly, and express my support and our support for that new clause. We have supported it many times in many different forms through many different debates.
The Labour party, last April, called for greater injunction powers following the disruption by Just Stop Oil, when millions of people could not access fuel. We argued that the raft of existing powers could be used more effectively. We suggested injunctions because they are more likely to prevent further disruption to, say, an oil terminal than more offences to criminalise conduct after it has taken place, with all the added costs and logistics of removal. Injunctions are more straightforward for the police, they have more safeguards as they are granted by a court, and they are future-proof when protesters change tactics.
Police officers have told us that some of the most effective measures they use in the face of potential serious disruption are injunctions. The National Police Chiefs’ Council protests lead, Chris Noble, said that
“they can be very useful in terms of what we are trying to control and how we are trying to shape…behaviour.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 8, Q7.]
In Kingsbury with Just Stop Oil and on the M25 with insulate Britain, people were arrested, removed and charged for breaching injunctions.
We introduced a new clause in Committee to bring what is known as the Canada Goose case into law. The Canada Goose case allowed injunctions to be taken out against persons unknown. This means that when groups of protesters form outside, the applicant does not have to know all their names or the names of people who may come in the future. Sadly, in Committee, the Government voted against our injunctions new clause. They said it would not create meaningful change.
The Government have since had a change of heart, however—another U-turn from the Government—but our suggestions for injunctions are still not being supported; they have introduced their own in new clauses 7 and 8. We believe these new clauses are flawed in several ways. First, there are some drafting problems, and lawyers we have spoken to are unclear on what the legal basis of an injunction would be. Secondly, we have concerns about placing the responsibility and power in the hands of the Home Secretary. Thirdly, we have concerns about where the burden of cost will fall; at a very difficult economic time, the Government can through this Bill shift financial responsibility from the private sector to the public sector, and that needs to be looked at.
In Committee, we heard evidence from HS2, who were in the process of applying for a route-wide injunction to protect their sites from serious disruption. This has now been granted by the High Court. The documents detailing the High Court decision show that the judge granted it partly on the basis that it satisfied the requirements of the Canada Goose case, the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal. Our new clause 4 puts on to the statue books the Canada Goose case law principles. Surely the Minister does not oppose principles set by the Court of Appeal; why does he not look again at Labour’s sensible amendment to tackle serious disruption?
Our new clause 5 seeks to make a simple but important change. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 contains a definition of serious disruption—after we called on the Government to define it as they had not  done so originally. That definition includes “noise generated by people”. We want that definition removed, so that when the police are deciding what constitutes serious disruption, they cannot do this on noise alone. We have all debated this many times in the House and I will not repeat the arguments we have made. Instead, I will quote the current Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who said in a letter to the previous Prime Minister:
“No genuinely Conservative government should have supported the recent ban on noisy protest—least of all when basic human freedoms are facing the threat of extinction in Ukraine.”
We agree with him and tonight the Government have the chance to do so too and to right that wrong. Surely, the Prime Minister, fixated supposedly on freedom, would want to defend the right to chant and sing at a protest, just like she did as a child against the party she now leads.
Since we now have a new Home Secretary, perhaps these words from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) are worth her also bearing in mind:
“It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]
That has never been more the case than now.
This Bill gives the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest: for example, shoppers passing a protest against a library closure, tourists walking through Parliament Square, or civil servants walking to their desks in the Cabinet Office. But these far-reaching powers to stop and search without suspicion go too far. We know the police will not feel comfortable using them—we have spoken to several who have said the same—and in an area of policing already prone to disproportionality, they represent a disproportionate way of preventing what is in the vast majority of cases a minor public order offence at most.
In the same way, a serious disruption prevention order, also introduced in this Bill, treats a peaceful protestor, who in some instances will have committed no crime, as if they were a terrorist. Is that what the Home Secretary really thinks? Does she really want her Government to be responsible for treating peaceful, if admittedly annoying, protestors like serious criminals? The SDPO is draconian, preventing people from going to places and seeing people when they have not even committed a crime. And we must remember that to be eligible for an SDPO, serious disruption does not even need to have occurred; as the Bill states, I could be given an SDPO if I helped someone else do something which was
“likely to result in, serious disruption to two or more individuals”.
The phrase “likely to result in” amounts in real world terms to absolutely nothing, and just two people being required to experience, or being likely to experience but not actually experiencing, serious disruption is too low a bar.
On new clause 11, everyone has a right to access healthcare without fear of intimidation. The same principles applied when we had debates in this place about buffer zones—public space protection orders—outside vaccine centres when there were protests against people having their vaccine. Access to healthcare is a fundamental right and we must safeguard it. Many Members have been making this argument for many years in many  different ways. The shadow Home Secretary has been calling for it since 2014. I have only been in Parliament since 2017 and we debated it in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and we do it again now. The Minister has the opportunity to do some good here; I think there is agreement on that on both sides of the House.
We all agree that the disruption we have seen from the small groups of hard-line protesters is unacceptable, whether blocking ambulances or stopping people getting to work for long periods of time, but our job as legislators is to come up with proposals that will actually help. It is our jobs to be grown-ups. This Government have created a piece of legislation that is disproportionate and threatens our unique model of policing by consent. In the evidence sessions, Sir Peter Fahy, a very well-respected former chief constable, spoke to us about the British style of policing. He said that we do not live in France or any other country with a paramilitary aspect to their policing and that
“in our policing system…policing is by consent… There would need to be a huge shift in the public mood and I think British policing is not really set up and does not have the mentality to use the degree of force that you see in other countries.
People do not realise that we are pretty unique...that is the British style”.––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 9 June 2022; c. 62, Q122.]
The Government would do well to listen to Sir Peter’s warnings. They are undermining that style of policing and upsetting that careful balance between the police and the people, and the fine line between being popular and populist. We are not the French. At a time when the economy is crashing and inflation is soaring, Ministers are choosing to spend precious parliamentary time trying to create political and cultural dividing lines, to chase headlines instead of actually finding sensible and workable solutions. The Government should rethink this flawed legislation.

Charles Walker: Over the past few days I have been accused of being tired, emotional, erratic, and, just to put the record straight, I am all of those things and more. I want to be clear: unlike some Members in this Chamber, I have no time for those people who block roads, throw soup, and make a general nuisance of themselves. They are agents against their own interests, as they repel normal ordinary people. Having said that, serious disruption prevention orders are not the answer. They leave me absolutely cold; in fact I would go so far as to say that they are absolutely appalling because there are plenty of existing laws that can be utilised to deal with people who specialise in making other people’s lives miserable.
I know there is a convention here that we do not read lists, but I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be allowed to read a very short list just to set out the laws that already exist and have been covered by colleagues: obstructing a police officer, Police Act 1996; obstructing a highway, Highways Act 1980; obstruction of an engine, Malicious Damage Act 1861—we all remember that one —endangering road users, Road Traffic Act 1988; aggravated trespass, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; criminal damage, Criminal Damage Act 1971; and public nuisance, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. There are also other laws. There is the Public Order Act 1986 that allows police officers to ban or place conditions on protest.
So the Government’s attraction to SDPOs demonstrates our own impotence as legislators and the impotence of the police as law enforcers to get to grips with the laws already in place and to enforce them. This is what we do now in politics: we have these machismo laws where something must be done, so we go out and do it, and that makes a good headline in The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but we do it and then very little happens, or if it does happen it is way over the top.

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend rightly compliments the police for routinely arresting and charging those who are responsible for wrongdoing. Does he agree that it is not an acceptable circumstance where 460 individuals have been arrested a total of 910 times for Just Stop Oil protests and that there is a difficult point of cumulation that we must accept?

Charles Walker: I thank the Minister for his intervention, because I am now warming to my task to nail a stake through the heart of this nonsense that we are debating. [Interruption.] It is absolute nonsense, Minister. For the benefit of Hansard, that is what the Minister said from a sedentary position. I would just say this. There is the idea that in this country we will ankle-tag someone who has not been convicted in a court of law. Those Chinese in their embassy will be watching that closely at the moment—they might actually be applying for some of this stuff once we have passed it in this place, as I suspect that we will.
Now I am getting tired and emotional. I say this to the Minister. During the covid lockdowns, when we banned protest, I warned that we would get to this point and that once the Government and politicians were emboldened by placing restrictions on a right and turning it into a freedom, they would not stop.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech that is being admired on both sides of the House. I wonder if he might be concerned that somebody could say that warnings on Radio 4 that the Conservative party might end up smaller than the SNP after the next election would be conducive to public disorder. Does he fear in any way being prosecuted himself as a result of that?

Charles Walker: The Conservative party is the architect of its own misfortune, and we must deal with that and respond to it, so I will not be tempted down that track by the hon. Gentleman. All I will say is that this is as unconservative as our Budget a few weeks ago. This is not what the Conservative party does. We believe in proportionate laws, like we used to believe in sound money. I will therefore be joining hon. Members from across the House in voting against this piece of legislation.
As I said a moment ago, I warned, over a pint of milk—the metaphor that I used—that our right to protest was being eroded. Now, we are crying over spilt milk.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I rise to speak to the new clauses tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Battersea  (Marsha De Cordova), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) as well as all those amendments that stand against this fundamentally flawed Bill.
One of my motivations for my new clauses was the fatal police shooting in my constituency of Chris Kaba, an unarmed black man, which sent shockwaves through a traumatised community. I offer my condolences to the Kaba family, his friends and his community. I will not say more for risk of sub judice, especially since an inquest is ongoing and the Independent office for Police Conduct is conducting a homicide investigation and considering whether race was a factor in his shooting. I am sure that everybody across the whole House will agree that a just society is one in which your race does not determine whether or not you are over-policed as a citizen and under-policed as a victim. But with a Government who seem hellbent on ramping up policing powers and presiding over worsening inequalities, it is clear that there will be an uphill struggle to realise that vision.
The Bill contains a significant expansion of police powers, including measures that the Government already attempted to put into the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Those measures were opposed in the other place, so I do not understand why they are trying to bring them back. That is one reason why new clause 15 states that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of black, Asian and minority ethnic people. New clause 16 would require an equality impact assessment of the Bill. Yet again, we are having to ask that the Government respect that equality is the law and do not propose legislation that clearly infringes on the rights of minoritised groups.

Liz Saville-Roberts: We hear figures from Wales that eight out of every 1,000 white people are stopped and searched. When we compare that with a rate of 56 per 1,000 black people, we see that there is something appalling in the state of stop and search across the United Kingdom—this legislation relates to England and Wales—and that there is something particular in Wales for which we need a Wales-specific justice impact assessment to understand and get to the root of why the figures are so extreme.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: The right hon. Member is absolutely right. That is why I support new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea on the use of stop-and-search powers. In them, she attempts to consult civil society organisations and consider the impact on groups with protected characteristics, as has been mentioned. That should clearly be done by the Government each and every single time they propose legislation, but they do not do it at all.
In this Black History Month, when we talk about some of the civil rights struggles of black people in this country, it is particularly offensive that, instead of reacting to them by bringing about change, the Government are attempting to provide police with even more unaccountable powers. Those are the same police who currently have extremely low trust and confidence among black communities, not least following the recent case of Ian Taylor, who died in police custody in the borough in which my constituency sits, the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer, also in my  constituency, the disproportionate levels of stop and search, and the treatment of Child Q and other children who have been strip-searched, as well as extensive evidence of institutionalised racism and misogyny in the police.
Just this week, Baroness Casey’s report found that many claims of sexual misconduct, misogyny, racism and homophobia were badly mishandled. These are
“patterns of unacceptable discrimination that clearly amount to systemic bias”,
and they cannot continue. Those are not my words but those of the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley.
We know that our criminal justice system continues to be held back by institutional racism—well, at least Opposition Members know that. We have heard about institutional racism in the policing of black communities in every single review—from Macpherson to Lammy—except the Government’s recent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report, which claimed that it did not exist at all.
Not only is the Bill a missed opportunity to remedy all of that profound injustice; it will only exacerbate the racial bias and the discrimination that continues to persist. That is part of the reason why I will speak in favour of a range of civil liberties amendments that seek to ensure human rights for all our citizens. I turn to new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I am a person of faith, and I believe that our human rights should be universal, but when a person exercising their rights begins to infringe on somebody else’s rights, that is the point at which we know that that right is wrong. We legislate on these things in this House again and again. The idea that we could use the right to free speech to infringe on someone else’s right to get healthcare is absolutely wrong, so I am pleased to support that new clause.
The Bill continues to follow a pattern from a Government who voice support for protests all around the world but want to crack down on the right to speak up here at home. Protest is an important part of a democratic country because it is one of the driving factors that allows individuals to exercise their rights to free speech and speak up against an unfair and unjust Government—like this Government—and their laws. That is why I tabled new clause 17, which sets out that there must be a public inquiry into the policing of protest, which would address: the use of force; kettling; the deployment of horses; and the new policing powers contained in the Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act. I have also signed a range of amendments and new clauses that would seek to protect our civil liberties and trade union rights, including addressing those recommendations from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and those supported by Liberty, Amnesty and others.
I draw colleagues’ attention to amendment 36, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the burden of proving “reasonable excuse” or that an act was part of a trade dispute away from the defendant and making it an element of the offence. The Government are not even attempting to sugar-coat the aim of that measure, which is trade unions. I see trade unions as our last line of defence against the relentless and accelerating attack that we see on the living standards  of the working-class. The Government know that their economic policies are unpopular and cause suffering, so they want to remove everybody’s right to resist and fight back.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. She is making a very powerful speech in support of her amendments. I was with her at the demonstration outside New Scotland Yard following the death of Chris Kaba. It was an emotional and passionate occasion. Everyone there was looking for justice and looking for knowledge and an inquiry. Does she support more pressure on the Home Office to hurry it up, so that we can get some closure on that terrible loss of life and the pain that goes with it? The beautiful way in which his cousin spoke at that demonstration will stay with me for ever.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: I thank my right hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Far too often, families like the Kaba family have to spend months, even years, seeking answers and justice for their loved ones. I hope that in the years to come, the Independent Office for Police Conduct quickly begins to look at measures to speed up the investigations that give family members answers about why they have died. We have to remember that around the time Chris Kaba died, not to mention him too much, he was one of two men who had been killed following contact with police, and one of over 1,000 who have died in police custody or following contact with police since 1990. Since that time, only one police officer has ever been prosecuted. That absolutely needs to change.
In conclusion, the Public Order Bill is a continuation of the Government’s assault on the right to protest, further criminalising people who call for the change we need and ramping up police powers to restrict demonstrations. It could also have a very negative impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. It is authoritarian and disadvantages the poorest and most marginalised communities. Unless it is fundamentally amended, I believe it must be opposed.

Edward Leigh: I am surprised we are debating this again. It was only in 2018 when the Home Office concluded there was no need to introduce so-called buffer zones. I am referring here to new clause 11. Buffer zones are disproportionate in the restrictions they impose on freedom of expression, and unnecessary in that there remains a lack of evidence that they are needed. The Government have recently affirmed this position, and rightly so given that existing laws enable the police and local authorities to deal with protests that are harmful. Before we rush to create new laws, it is only right that the Government expect the police and local authorities to use their current powers appropriately and where necessary.
The 2018 review showed that
“it would not be proportionate to introduce a blanket ban”
as the evidence found that protests occurred at less than 10% of abortion clinics. That is a very small number. Of course—we emphasise this point—any kind of harassment is absolutely wrong. It should be dealt with by the law and can be dealt with by existing laws. We have heard much in the debate about how we should turn to existing laws, rather than create new ones. Any remedy must be proportionate to the problem. The review—not my  review, but an objective Government review—concluded that most of the activities during these protests were passive in nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in a very powerful speech, described just how passive they can be. They can be standing there and praying silently, not even holding up a banner of any nature or saying anything. It could include praying or handing out leaflets. The review found that disruptive or aggressive behaviour was the exception, not the norm. Crucially, it also confirmed that the police have the necessary powers already to take action and protect the public when protests become harmful or disruptive. A blanket ban of the kind proposed in new clause 11 would be disproportionate in the face of those facts. The law must be proportionate.
To be clear, the people this amendment targets are peaceful protestors, often elderly grandmothers, frankly, who are entirely peaceful. They politely pray and hand out leaflets. The contrast could not be greater between those protestors and those of the likes of Just Stop Oil, who glue themselves to roads and create human blockades that are disruptive and obstructionist. If any so-called protesters at abortion clinics did anything like that, they would be immediately arrested. While the police have the powers to take action so that ordinary people can go about their daily lives, they will not stop Just Stop Oil protests.
Are we in this House really going to criminalise people who are peacefully trying to raise awareness about support available? This is the point.

Stella Creasy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: No, I have been told not to speak for long and I want to get on with it.
We are talking about people who are just trying to raise awareness about the support available. This is a crucial point. They want to raise awareness about the support available to women facing difficult pregnancies with nowhere else to turn to. We are going to criminalise these grandmothers, but so many of the Just Stop Oil people walk free.
Therefore, this is not primarily a debate about abortion. We all have our views on that. This is a debate and an amendment about public order. A thorough review of this subject, including the public order aspect, found that buffer zones would be an excessive response to protests or vigils outside abortion clinics. There is no need to change the law with the new clause.
I support the Bill, but if new clause 11 is included in it, I could no longer support it. Many pro-life MPs will be in the position I am in. The Government will be putting us in a very difficult position. I would be interested to know—I did not get an answer to this—what the Labour party will do if new clause 11 is included. Presumably, it would rather more favour aspects of the Bill. What will be the attitude of the Minister? Is he in favour of new clause 11? If he wants to speak against it, is he going to not support his own Bill? We will see. I look forward to his comments.
I hope we can get on with the aims of better supporting the police to protect the rights of people to go about their daily business in the face of the likes of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion, and to focus their resources on keeping the public safe.
Lastly, I want to make it clear that this is about raising awareness. The last comment must go to Alina Dulgheriu, a vulnerable mother who fronts a campaign called “Be Here For Me”. She recently recalled:
“The day I made my way to the abortion facility was the darkest day my heart has ever known. All I needed was help until I gave birth. A lady and a leaflet. That’s all it took. Right there at the steps of abortion centre. From all that darkness, at last I felt hope, I felt for the first time that my child was wanted, not only by me, but also by complete strangers. For the first time, I felt that I was not walking alone on the day I was meant to end the life within me—my child. I cannot express the joy and how fulfilled I felt as a woman, as a mother, to be given the chance to have my child. A just and caring society doesn’t criminalise people for offering help to vulnerable mothers.”

Olivia Blake: It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), although I do not agree with much of what he said. We must remember in this place that we do not know the reasons why women present themselves at abortion clinics. I have been campaigning and advocating for women who have experienced miscarriage, and I want the House to know that that is a primary reason why someone may present at an abortion clinic. For someone to be presented with a picture of a foetus when they consider themselves to be a mother is beyond the line, so I support buffer zones.

Maria Miller: This may be the intervention that another Member was about to make. The protests around buffer zones affect about 10% of clinics, but it is estimated that they affect up to 50% of women, because they tend to target the larger clinics. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that that is put on the record?

Olivia Blake: I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. We know that women sometimes have to travel very far to get access to this sort of healthcare, so of course this will impact more women at certain clinics.
Before getting into the subject of the Bill, I wish to highlight the economic context in which this is being played out, because it is directly related to why the Bill is being proposed in the first place. For more than a decade, the austerity agenda has led to stagnating wages and declining conditions at work, and it has weakened the fundamentals of our economy. Researchers at the University of Glasgow recently found that the Government’s scorched earth economic policy contributed to 330,000 excess deaths between 2010 and 2019. After the massive transfer of incomes, resources and wealth from the poorest to the richest in our society, we were left in no condition to weather a pandemic and the subsequent soaring cost of living.
In September’s financial statement, although it has been massively U-turned on, the Government succeeded in turning the cost of living crisis into a run on the pound. Now it is as though we have turned the clock back to 2010, with the new Chancellor telling us that he will have to make eye-watering decisions about spending.  The cycle continues: we are facing austerity all over again. The services our communities rely on will be hit hard.
The problems at the core of the stagnation and crises are underinvestment, profiteering and the chasms of inequality and divide in our society. But rather than fixing those, Government Front Benchers seem intent on making them worse, which is exactly why they need this Bill. If wages keep being cut and the services that people rely on are dismantled, they will express their opposition to that through protests, strikes and direct action.
The recent spy cops Act, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and now this Bill are all about reducing the rights of people to come together to give a collective voice to their dissent—and that is without mentioning the attacks on the right to organise in our workplaces and to take industrial action to defend pay and conditions. Like any paranoid authoritarian measure to curb dissent, some of the proposals in the Bill are completely ridiculous. I have a staff member who rides a bike to work and carries a bike lock. Is she “equipped to lock-on”? How will police gauge whether she intends to use it to commit an offence? Some of the wording in the Bill is so loose it could apply to everything and anything. What does “locking-on” actually mean? Could linking arms be locking-on? What does it mean to cause “serious disruption”?
I am concerned that the real reason for the loose wording is to create a chilling effect on any kind of dissent at all. That is reflected in the serious disruption prevention orders. The right to protest is a human right. The idea of banning individuals from attending a demonstration regardless of whether they have committed a crime is draconian. Just think about who that would have applied to in our history. Think of Millicent Fawcett, whose statue stands in that square outside, looking up at this building. Would I be standing here today if women such as her had not had the right to protest? The Government do not seem particularly keen on elections right now. Perhaps the Home Secretary would be dishing out these SDPOs to the Chartists or the Pankhursts, or other uppity troublemakers.
I think this Bill is rotten to the core, but I will be supporting all the amendments that seek to curb its excesses and to prevent it from cracking down on our right to voice opposition. I will be opposing the proposals to extend stop-and-search powers—powers that have already done so much damage to communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) mentioned. We do not need this legislation. What we need is a Government who address the real causes of peoples’ concerns: the cost of living crisis, the climate crisis and the lack of trust in our democratic institutions. The draconian proposals we are debating today are about equipping this Government to do the exact opposite.

David Simmonds: I wish to start by expressing my strong support for the provisions that the Bill brings forward. In my life before Parliament, as a local councillor and as a magistrate, I had cause to engage with many of the issues the Bill seeks to address. It seems to me that on the whole it is a sensible and proportionate way of bringing forward new police powers and new laws to ensure that our constituents lives’ are not unduly and unfairly disrupted.
In particular, I wish to place on the record my thanks to constituents, such as the late Roy Parsons, who over the years have contributed a huge amount to law and order in the community. Their efforts have helped to illuminate my thinking as a Member of Parliament about how some of these challenges need to be addressed.
My constituency is very much a place of commuters, with people travelling to work by road, rail and bus. I am conscious that especially for those who are part of the lifeblood of the economy of our capital the disruption that has been caused to their lives by protests that seek to test existing laws to the very limits is considerable. There is a cost to people’s businesses and people’s jobs, and it creates a great deal of nuisance for those seeking to attend hospital appointments and, in some cases, to respond to emergencies. It is therefore absolutely right that the Government listen to the voice of the law-abiding people who are part of the lifeblood of our capital city and seek to address the changing tactics that we have seen from protesters over the years.
I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who was absolutely right to refer to the plethora—the patchwork—of existing laws. The challenge I have heard about—not least from those responsible for leading policing in the capital and in my local area—is that there is often not the required specific power available as protest groups seek to change and update their tactics. I listened to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I am sure that he recalls the moves by a particular organisation to sell single square feet of space in a field adjacent to Heathrow airport, with a view to using the due process of law to frustrate the legal processes that were being gone through at the time in the context of Heathrow expansion. Although I agree entirely with the purpose, it is absolutely right that that should have been frustrated. We have seen those tactics beginning to create disruption in what should be a legal and democratic decision-making process, so introducing proposals that update the law in the light of those changes, in my view, is absolutely spot on.
Let me address new clause 11, which I intend to support in the House today. My experience has been of issues relating to the existing legislation, particularly the ability of local authorities to obtain public space protection orders or to use other provisions that are out there. It is extremely costly and often very complex and fraught with legal difficulty to follow those processes. That is why, following occasions in the House when we debate creating provisions that we expect to be used, for example, by local authorities, they are often little used in practice. We need to ensure, if we are taking seriously the issue of an unacceptable degree of harassment, that we put in place provisions that will deal with that properly and effectively.
I am very sympathetic to many of the points that have been made on the pro-life side of the argument, but I take the view that, whatever we think about the detail of the abortion debate, it is absolutely right that we ensure that all our citizens are properly protected from the harassment that may take place. There are some issues with the drafting of what has been proposed, in that we want to ensure that appropriate, lawful interventions that are helpful to people can take place. I will support the new clause, however, and I hope that the Government will perhaps in due course consider the  weight of opinion that appears to be being expressed in the House and ensure that that finds its ultimate expression in a way that works to provide appropriate, lawful and proportionate protection to women in that context.

Marco Longhi: Following on from my hon. Friend’s argument, for which I have some sympathy, does he agree that perhaps there should be a buffer zone around this place? Many of us in this place are often—on a daily basis—harassed by people out there.

David Simmonds: My hon. Friend knows of what he speaks. There are many Members who have been subject to the very strong expression of political opinions, but what differentiates this point is that we are talking about people who go to undertake a legal, lawful medical procedure. They go to access a form of healthcare that the laws of this land, established by this Parliament, determine that they should be able to access. Although it is absolutely right that people should be able to engage in peaceful protest to make points to those of us who are engaged in the democratic process of the land—sometimes including noisy, disruptive protests—that should clearly never cross the line that existing laws establish, which would cover such things as assault and appropriate protection. However, it is absolutely clear, in my view, that we need to ensure that those who are accessing healthcare can do so without having that lawful access unduly interfered with.
Let me finish by referring to the amendments and points that have been raised on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I am a member of that Committee, which spent time looking at not just this Bill, but a wide range of legislation, setting that against expectations that might be found in relation to the UK’s membership of the European convention on human rights. There is always debate in the legal profession about how provisions apply, but the points that have been raised seem legitimate. I hope that in his reply the Minister will address how due process and the right to lawful protest will be appropriately balanced under  the Bill.
My view as a Back-Bench Member in the governing party, having considered the Government’s arguments, is that they are proportionate and balanced. However, it is clear that many people are asking questions and want them answered. It would be helpful if some of the legal thinking behind the drafting were illuminated, particularly with respect to balancing the need to prevent undue disruption to people’s normal working and private lives with the rights of others to enjoy free speech and lawful protest.

Wendy Chamberlain: I rise to speak in support of several amendments, including new clauses 1 to 5, tabled by the official Opposition, and new clauses 9 to 14. I agree that there should be a free vote on new clause 11, to which I am sympathetic and which I will support. The speeches on it so far have been very powerful. I also wish to speak to new clauses 15 to 17—the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is no longer in her place, spoke powerfully about them—and to the amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member  for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on behalf of the SNP, and by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
I speak on behalf of my constituents who are concerned about what the Bill means for the right to protest. It might be argued that the Bill will not affect them directly, but like the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, I have constituents who will travel to England and Wales to protest. As I highlighted in my intervention about mutual aid policing arrangements, the Bill is likely to mean additional training requirements for Scottish officers deployed elsewhere, as at last year’s G7 meeting.
We have heard from many Members of this House with a legal background and training, but I believe I am the only former police officer in this debate; I do not see the other two hon. Members who I know were police officers. I am also the wife and daughter of former police officers—indeed, my husband was a senior public order commander—and I am the stepmother of serving police officers. I have policed demonstrations. It might have been some time ago, but I speak with some knowledge and direct experience.
Laws should be necessary, but as we heard in our Bill Committee evidence, the police already have the power to respond to protests; I am grateful to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for raising that point. Ideally, laws should not break our already stretched systems—that was an area of focus for me in Committee—but this law risks our police’s very ability to tackle day-to-day crime, which the Home Secretary says is a priority for the Government.
Regardless of rank, length of service or extent of training, the first officer to attend any incident—protest or otherwise—is the officer in charge until they are relieved of that duty. I say that not to denigrate, but to illustrate. That officer will have to determine whether there is a risk of serious disruption and, if so, whether an offence under the Bill or any other law is being committed. I am concerned that there is a risk of inconsistent application of the criminal law and a breach of the rule of law. I therefore support the official Opposition’s new clauses 1 to 5, which would ensure that the Bill’s provisions are applied appropriately.
It is not just me. The National Police Chiefs’ Council’s evidence to the Bill Committee suggested similar concerns, which would be at least partially addressed by some of the amendments, particularly those tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West to implement the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I remain concerned that the police, particularly those in junior roles, may end up ill-equipped to make the judgment calls that the Bill requires.
Let us be clear: the police do not need this Bill to respond when protests cross the line. Where there is criminal damage or trespass, they already have the power to respond. However, if the Bill is passed with no amendments but the Government’s, all protest will effectively be frozen for fear of being caught by the legislation. Importantly, the Bill is also likely—I refer to the comments that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), made about policing in France and elsewhere—to freeze the police’s relationships with a wide range of activist groups, which involve constant  dialogue to balance the facilitation of protests with the rights of others to go about their daily business. That dialogue happens all the time in all our communities and is something to be celebrated.

Jeremy Quin: I deeply respect the hon. Lady’s policing experience and that of her family, but she has implied that the Bill will allow the freezing of protests and an inability to protest, which is not the case. I think that, as a former police officer, she would recognise serious disruption. We are absolutely clear about this: a protest constitutes something that is really interfering with people’s way of life, preventing them from getting to work and engaging in their normal business.

Wendy Chamberlain: What I am trying to say is that the existing legislation already deals with those circumstances, and that, given that some of the Bill’s provisions mean that people need not even have done anything to be subject to them, there is a fear that it will prevent them from doing anything at all. I believe that the fact that our police service is grounded in policing by consent—unlike those in other countries whose police forces have evolved from more militaristic origins—is something to be celebrated.
If the police do not need the powers, if all that the Bill does is make it harder for legitimate protest to take place and if it restricts the right of citizens, I would argue that we do not need it at all. We should reflect on the fact that the Minister, in his opening remarks, claimed that the existing legislation was a reason for rejecting new clause 11.
Let me now raise another point, which I have touched on already. It is not about protecting the democratic rights of our citizens, but in many ways it is just as important, because it concerns the real impact on the capacity of the police service. In Committee I tabled a number of amendments, and although I have not tabled them again on Report, this is a key consideration.
When we pass poor legislation, we sometimes see the results in our constituency surgeries, but when it comes to legislation such as this, we will not be dealing with the outcomes directly. I believe that if the Government are confident that the Bill, in its current form, will do what it is intended to do, they should be comfortable with receiving reports from the College of Policing and from police forces about the capability and capacity of those forces to deliver the legislation—and that is before we even think about the huge backlogs in the criminal justice system. It will take some time for people to come before the courts in the context of this Bill.
The proposed new powers will require additional officer training. Sir Peter Fahy, the former chief constable of Greater Manchester Police, gave evidence to the Bill Committee. The simple fact is this:
“If there are not enough police officers trained to properly respond to protests and apply these new laws, that means that more people must be trained—training that costs thousands of pounds and means that officers are potentially in classrooms, not out on the street.”––[Official Report, Public Order Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2022; c. 191]
Chris Noble, the chief constable of Staffordshire Police, estimated that, under the current legislation, it takes an officer two or three weeks per year to keep up with necessary additional public order skills. The offences specified in the Bill will require significantly more training  at the outset, at the least, and will mean even more days of actual policing lost at significant cost, with simply abstracts from core policing duties. Once the officers are trained, it is likely that deployment to protests will increase as a result of the Bill’s restrictions. Simply put, people cannot be in two places at once, and resources are limited. According to evidence given to the Committee, the arrest of a protester usually involves six officers. We will run out of police officers before we run out of protesters.
I know where I would rather the police were. I would rather see an officer making sure that the streets were safe for women and girls walking home at night, going after gangs and those working across county lines, stopping the scammers who target our elderly and vulnerable, working on counter-terrorism, and preventing organised crime. I ask colleagues to reflect on what they and their constituents really want when faced with the reality of these choices, which were made even more stark by the Chancellor when he stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
Policing by consent is one of the greatest attributes of our country, and it is something that I am passionate about. The Bill undermines that. Although we will support amendments that curb its worst excesses, I will continue to argue that the decision in the other place to remove these clauses when they were part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was correct. I cannot support the Bill in its current form.

Victoria Atkins: I rise to speak in favour of new clause 11.
In a perfect world, no woman or girl would be raped; no foetus would have life-shortening, agonising conditions or endanger the life of the mother; and every baby born would be yearned for and cherished. But we do not live in a perfect world, and that is why Parliament has settled laws for the regulation of the provision of abortion services. This is what new clause 11 concerns. It is not about the form of those laws, or their details; it is about the provision of those services in day-to-day life.
I had the responsibility for looking after abortion clinic buffer zones from 2017 until I was promoted from the Home Office last year. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) says, an issue with which I grappled, because there is a real balancing skill involved in weighing up not only the concerns of those women seeking medical services and those who support them, but the sincerely held beliefs of those who do not agree with abortion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is no longer in his place, has set out some of the history of this, and I was an active part of it, so I really am trying to help the Minister when I try to explain some of the shifting of that balancing operation.
In 2017 Amber Rudd was Home Secretary, and in response to concerns voiced by parliamentarians she commissioned a review into demonstrations and protests outside abortion clinics. We announced the results of that review in, I think, 2018, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was Home Secretary. At that point I stood at the Dispatch Box and I signed letters to say that we had looked at the number of clinics and weighed up the power of PSPOs. At that point, from memory, one council—maybe two—had  applied for a PSPO, and we felt that the balance was in favour of PSPOs being using on a targeted basis for those clinics affected.
The review continued—I genuinely kept this under constant review—thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex and my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), among many others on this side, as well as the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). It is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Walthamstow in her place today. Indeed, only last summer we looked at this again in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. At that point, although the number of clinics affected by demonstrations had increased since the initial review, we felt that in the interest of balancing both sets of interests, PSPOs were the right way to go.
Today, however, five councils have applied for these orders, and happily the imposition of those orders has been upheld by the Court of Appeal as being lawful. We have heard in the course of this debate the concern that the five PSPOs cover five clinics out of some 50 that have been the subject of protests and demonstrations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made the important point that this is not just about the number of clinics; it is about the number of women who go to the clinics for these services. I think I am right in remembering that she cited the statistic that around half of women who seek these services had attended clinics where there had been protests and demonstrations.
So I find myself in the position of agreeing with new clause 11, not because I like banning things or because I am against the legitimate and sincerely held beliefs of those who cannot support the provision of abortion services, but because I come back to the point about the provision of services to women who need them and the circumstances in which they find themselves as they walk that long and lonely path to the doors of the clinic, hospital or surgery providing those services. I know from speaking to women who have been through these protests that they have made a difficult decision. There may be many factors surrounding the decision, involving their home lives, the circumstances in which the pregnancy came about and the concerns for what might happen if their friends, families or the wider society found out that they had had these operations. These are fundamental healthcare services that we provide, rightly and lawfully, in the 21st century. We must surely enable women to access these services as and when they need them so that they get the right help and advice.
I conclude by thanking the Government. I have travelled some of this journey in policy development, so I know my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire has taken these issues into very close consideration. I greatly appreciate that the business managers have decided to allow Conservative colleagues to vote in accordance with our conscience, which is important, so I thank them sincerely.
As I say, my colleagues and I do not take this decision lightly, but we have to reflect the reality that women face as they go through these services, and just how discomfiting  even the most peaceful demonstrations can be. I very much hope that Conservative colleagues will bear these concerns in mind as they freely cast their vote tonight to stand, I hope, in accordance with the law in the careful and caring provision of these services.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I advise the House that I will be calling Anne McLaughlin to start the wind-ups no later than 4.12 pm, but she can be called earlier. The debate on Report must finish at 4.37 pm.

Caroline Lucas: Frankly, there is so much wrong with the Bill that it is difficult to know where to start. It basically needs a line striking through the vast majority of it, and I am therefore pleased to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) seeking to do exactly that.
Peaceful protest is a fundamental right protected in international law, and this Bill is just the latest in a concerted attack on our rights by this dangerous and populist Government. It is a draconian rehash of measures resoundingly voted down just months ago. As I have said previously in this House, the Government are pursuing policies and legislation that are deeply dangerous in the threat they pose to our fundamental and universally acknowledged human rights. People who vote in favour of this Bill tonight need to be fully aware and honest about what they are endorsing and what is occurring on our watch.
Defending the right to peaceful protest matters, especially to me, because it is one of the time-honoured ways in which people from all walks of life have sought to protect our natural world, and it is particularly critical right now. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke eloquently about the wider context of austerity and economic suffering that so many of our constituents are facing. I want to widen that context and talk about the attack, frankly, that Ministers are unleashing on policies to protect nature, from issuing new oil and gas licences and lifting the moratorium on fracking to scrapping 570 laws that make up the bedrock of environmental regulation in the UK, covering water quality, wildlife havens, clean air and much else.
Ministers may hide behind endless repetitions of their promise to halt the decline of nature by 2030, but their actions are taking us in precisely the opposite direction. Those who oppose this direction of travel must have the right to take action themselves, and they must have the right to protest. Rather than plunging more and more people into the criminal justice system, the Home Office could be doing all manner of much more useful things, including properly supporting and resourcing community policing.
We should not be giving the Government the ability to create new public order offences as and when they choose, yet that is precisely the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. As colleagues will know, injunctions may usually be applied for only by affected parties. New clause 7, however, allows the Secretary of State to apply for a so-called precautionary injunction against people who might go on a protest or who might carry out protest-related activities. This might occur if there is  reasonable belief that particular activities are likely to cause serious disruption to key national infrastructure or access to essential goods and services.

Liz Saville-Roberts: In all honesty, it is worth wondering whether Welsh language rights would exist at all today if measures proposed by the Government had existed in 1963 when Cymdeithas yr Iaith protesters closed Trefechan bridge—Pont Trefechan—in Aberystwyth. Their act of peaceful civil disobedience led to no arrests, but was broadcast across Wales. Indeed, the King’s Welsh language tutor, Tedi Millward, was among the protesters. Does the hon. Member agree that, almost 60 years later, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government should be considering the specific impact on Wales of these justice changes and how that in turn could have had a very bad result in terms of the Welsh language had it been enacted 60 years ago?

Caroline Lucas: I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful contribution with which I entirely agree.
I was just explaining about the combined effect of new clauses 7 and 8. New clause 7, crucially, allows the Government to propose that the Secretary of State be allowed themselves to apply for an injunction despite not being affected or being a party in the normal sense. Added to that is the effect of new clause 8, which gives the Secretary of State another new power, namely to apply to the court to attach a power of arrest and of remand to injunctions granted under new clause 7.
Let us imagine what that could look like in practice. Let us suppose that the Government set their sights on a group of countryside ramblers planning a walk headed in the direction of a nature reserve that is home to a protected species and about to be dug up by investment zone bulldozers. The Secretary of State might decide that there is a risk that the ramblers will link hands to try to close down a major bridge that is required for vehicle access to the nature reserve. The Government might then apply for an injunction to stop the walk and for the power to arrest anyone who breaches that injunction and goes rambling in the countryside—regardless of their intentions. If successful, a new public order offence will have effectively been created on the basis of potential disruption of key national infrastructure, and the ramblers concerned will be at risk of being fined or even imprisoned. I do not think that it is an over-exaggeration to call such powers Orwellian. They are anti-freedom, anti-human rights and anti-democratic.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an absolutely excellent speech. The right to roam would not have happened without the mass trespass at Kinder Scout in the 1930s. We owe our liberties to those who took risks by demonstrating in the first place. Every Member of this House has benefited from those liberties that came about as a result of the risks that others took.

Caroline Lucas: Do I agree? Yes, I do. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. As someone who took part in some recreations of that trespass on Kinder Scout earlier this year, I could not agree with him more about the importance of people taking that action.
It is also important to note that while existing and expansive civil injunctions are being used with growing and alarming frequency to clamp down on direct action tactics, with a wider, chilling effect on the right to protest, the majority of civil injunctions do not give the police powers of arrest. I have repeatedly warned that the Government’s approach overall amounts to a dangerous politicising of policing, and these two new clauses are cut from exactly the same cloth. Moreover, a seemingly ideological determination to stop people standing up for what they believe in is woven through every clause of this Bill.
In my remaining time, I want to speak specifically against serious disruption prevention orders and in favour of the amendments to remove them. On Second Reading, I set out my objection to these new civil orders and said that they might more accurately be called “sinister disproportionate political orders”. Nothing I have heard since then has persuaded me otherwise.
The Government want to be able to impose such orders on individuals who have participated in at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have actually been convicted of any crime. That is a massive expansion of police powers. Furthermore, the range of activities that could result in someone being given an SDPO is extremely broad. It includes actions that would not themselves be criminal but for the creation of the new, widely-drawn offences in the Bill. The threshold is so low as to be laughable, were the consequences not so grave. The conditions for imposing an SDPO include activities related to a protest that might—might—cause serious disruption to two or more people. The Bill is a massive clampdown on our civil liberties and we have to oppose it.
Finally, I wish to put on record my support for the new clauses of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and for new clause 11, which has been much discussed already this afternoon. I also want to say a few last words about new clauses 13 and 14, which I support because they are consistent with so much of the work that has been done over many years to make misogyny a hate crime and to end violence against women and girls. Sexual harassment is still at epidemic proportions. Women are disproportionately subjected to harassment, abuse and intimidation every day. Those offences are still not properly addressed by the police or the criminal justice system.
New clauses 13 and 14 would bring sentencing for harassment offences motivated by the sex of the victim in line with the approach already followed for offences motivated by race or religious identity. Crucially, they do not create any new public order offences or make anything illegal that is not already illegal; rather, they seek to ensure a serious response from the police and the courts. I hope that, in turn, harsher sentencing for those hate crimes would act as a deterrent and encourage women to report sex-based harassment, confident that they will be taken more seriously than at present.
Some 97% of women under the age of 25 have experienced sexual harassment in a public space—a huge number. There is no room for complacency. If we want to tackle hate crime against women, we must support the changes set out in new clauses 13 and 14.

Carla Lockhart: In introducing new clause 11, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is merely picking up the baton from  amendments originally sponsored by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), who has tried to bring these plans forward three times already since 2020. It will come as no surprise that I rise to speak against the new clause or that our party will vote against it. It is not needed now for the same reasons it was not needed on those occasions.
We already have laws on the statute book to prevent harassment and maintain public order, including laws in place to ensure that women are not harassed or intimidated outside abortion clinics. Therefore, the new clause is simply unnecessary. The law gives the police the powers they need to maintain public order, to intervene if demonstrations cause serious disruption and to tackle threatening or abusive behaviour that may intimidate women.
In the vast majority of cases, there is no evidence that hospitals and abortion clinics are affected by protesters, so a blanket ban is an unnecessary and disproportionate response, especially when the police can protect women through other lawful means. The police already have the tools they need to protect women. There is no evidence of the scale of harassment that the hon. Member for Walthamstow and others in this House have referred to. Therefore, I repeat, the new clause is not necessary. It would risk unintended consequences for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and it would be bad for women.
Many women have been helped by volunteers outside abortion clinics. The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to Alina Dulgheriu, who wrote last week about her experience and how a lady helped her outside an abortion clinic. I will not repeat the story, but she explained that her
“beautiful daughter would not be here today”
without support from a volunteer handing out a leaflet outside the clinic.
Another mother, who is happy for her testimony to be shared with parliamentarians but does not want her name shared because of fears of retaliation from pro-choice campaigners, explained that she was “under immense pressure” to go through with her abortion, but on her way into the abortion clinic a woman handed her a leaflet and simply said that she was there if she needed her. Her conversation with that woman gave her the support and confidence she needed to keep her baby.
That mother further recounted:
“The potential introduction of buffer zones is a really bad idea because women like me, what would they do then? You know, not every woman that walks into those clinics actually wants to go through with the termination. There’s immense pressure, maybe they don’t have financial means to support themselves or their baby, or they feel like there’s no alternatives. These people offer alternatives.”
She describes her daughter as
“an amazing, perfect little girl”
and the love of her life. She shared her testimony because she wants MPs advocating for buffer zones to realise that her daughter would not be alive today if they had had their way. Buffer zones would deprive many other women who do not want to abort their babies but perhaps feel they have no other choice of the same support that these two who have bravely shared their stories received.
Before I conclude, there are a number of other points I want to make. Under this new clause, as drafted, it would be a crime to offer help to those women who ideally would like to continue with the pregnancy but cannot, due to economic circumstances. That is just abhorrent. The new clause would criminalise anyone making such an offer regardless of how they went about it or their views on abortion. How is that pro-choice?
Similarly, the new clause as drafted would criminalise someone who accompanies a woman having an abortion and who says, “Are you sure?” even if the woman seeking the abortion is happy for that to be asked. Even if hon. Members agree with the principle of the new clause, there must be a recognition that it is poorly drafted and criminalises far more than ought to be criminalised. It is not tailored to deal with disruptive pro-life protestors, as perhaps the House has been led to believe by those who have proposed it. I encourage hon. Members across the House to consider what has been said about the new clause going far further than needed; laws are already in place to protect women against any misdemeanours or inappropriate behaviour outside such clinics.

Anne McLaughlin: I am so disappointed that we are debating a piece of legislation that should have been resigned to the scrap heap, along with the previous Cabinet’s regressive legislative programme. We are firefighting an economic crisis on an unprecedented scale and valuable Government time in this place is being wasted on draconian legislation that nobody, with the exception of selected Government Members, actually wants. I include in that the people who will be sent out on the streets to try to enforce this nonsense. Representatives from police forces have said time and again, throughout the consultation and Committee stages of the Bill, that this is not required.
The powers already exist to police protests in an effective and proportionate manner, and that is what I will focus on—proportionality. After all, this is a balancing act between the fundamental rights that allow us to protest, for whatever cause and whatever reason, and the rights of those who might be inconvenienced or affected by a protest.
At what stage does the scale tip? Government Members will undoubtedly cite cases where protestors glued themselves to the M25 or threw tomato soup at a priceless artwork, albeit one that was behind protective glass, but at what point does their right to stand up and say, “Wake up! The world is on fire,” become less important than someone’s right to get to work on time or to gaze upon a painting? The right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that people standing shouting at people outside abortion clinics were “just raising awareness”. Well, he cannot argue that such protestors are doing anything other than trying to raise awareness.
Throughout the stages of the Bill and repeatedly during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, it was made clear to the Government that the whole point of a protest is to make a noise and get noticed. I am sure that when Muriel Matters and Helen Fox chained themselves to the grille in the Ladies’ Gallery of this place in 1908, shouting,
“We have been behind this insulting grille too long!”,
they intended to be heard. Thanks to protests like that, not only can I now vote, but I can stand here and represent the voices of my constituents—as long as my own voice does not pack up soon.
Let us imagine this Bill had been in place in 1908. Muriel and Helen might have been stopped and searched on the way here, and a chain or lock may have been found on them. Maybe they would be serving 51 weeks in prison, or maybe the chilling effect of knowing this might happen would have stopped them altogether, so maybe women would not have got the vote. Do you see where I am going with this, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am not even delving into the vast number of ways a person could be snared by the Bill.
We have a new Home Secretary, who has taken the wheel and veered further into the realms of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “The Handmaid’s Tale” in a way that brings to mind that iconic lyric from one of my favourite bands, The Who:
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Her scant regard for human rights, the European convention on human rights, and our obligations under international law are well documented, so any lip service to the claim that the Bill is somehow compliant with the ECHR is exactly that.
Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I will take some time to focus on part 2 and serious disruption prevention orders. I much prefer the colloquial name given to these orders by civil liberties groups including Liberty and Big Brother Watch: protest banning orders. That is what they are. I have talked to a lot of people about the Bill, and the conversation usually starts with locking on and tunnelling. They are headline grabbers, and rightly so, but when the discussion moves on to protest banning orders and just how far and wide the net spreads to catch people, jaws visibly drop. People just cannot believe that this could happen to them. I can hardly believe it, and I am a really cynical person.
We are talking about an order placed on a person—it could be you, Mr Deputy Speaker—that can restrict where they go, who they see, what they do and how they use the internet, and could result in them having to wear a GPS tag for an indefinite period. It can be slapped on someone who has not even attended a protest. I am hoping for an intervention from a Member trying to claim that I am oversimplifying this, but I doubt I will get one, because I am not. As others have said, all somebody has to do to be served with a protest banning order is to participate in at least two protests within a five-year period, whether or not they have been convicted of a crime. An order can be placed on a person who has carried out activities or contributed to the carrying out of activities by any other person related to a protest that resulted in, or was likely to result in, serious disruption on two or more occasions. Wow!
This provision could not be broader. It could apply to anyone. Take me for example. What if I let my partner borrow my mobile phone to tweet about a Black Lives Matter protest? Could it be claimed that I am inadvertently contributing to the carrying out of activities by another person related to a protest that is likely to result in serious disruption? What is serious disruption? Members should not bother flicking through the Bill, because the definition is not there. The closest definition we might  be able to rely on is in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, under which—rather conveniently—the Home Secretary has discretion to redefine it any time she sees fit to do so.
We had hours of debate on this in Committee. The issue has been and always will be that “serious disruption” is wholly subjective, so it sets an incredibly low threshold for these draconian measures being placed on individuals who are simply exercising their human rights. I agree with the Labour amendment that states we must have a definition of serious disruption, but let me be clear: my position and that or my party is that we must get rid of these provisions all together.
When I get my SDPO, I have to fulfil a host of obligations, and if I do not, I cross the line into criminal behaviour for breach of a civil order, ending with a 51-week stay in prison, a fine, or both. Not that civil after all, it appears. I might not be able to attend future protests. I might be stopped from using the internet in ways that might encourage people to carry out activities that are related to a protest, or that are likely to result in serious disruption—again, there is no definition of the term. I do not even have to have been at a protest to be banned from any future protest—a point not lost on Lord Paddick when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill was on Report in the other place.
Why do we find ourselves in the realm of preventive justice? On Second Reading, I referred to the movie “Minority Report”, where precogs could look into the future and predict a crime before it happened. That is a movie; it is not supposed to be a template to base actual laws on. The police have roundly rejected the concept of protest banning orders and have claimed that they
“would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent,”
so why are we doing this?
We cannot electronically tag people who have committed no crime and claim that we are respecting their human rights, although shamefully the Government have no qualms about doing that to asylum seekers. A GPS tag’s data can carry the most personal and sensitive information, such as who someone’s GP is, where they shop and who they visit. It is a massive invasion of privacy that marks a new era of state surveillance.
We very much support of amendment 1, which removes SDPOs from the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) for his work on the amendment, for his fantastic speech today—I never thought that I would hear myself say that about someone on the Conservative Benches, but it hit the mark—and for his collaborative approach to the amendment, which was in his name and is now in my name. I hope to press it to a vote tonight.
I have spent much of the time available to me discussing SDPOs, but I reiterate the SNP’s complete opposition to the Bill in its entirety, because it is draconian. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, we need only to look at the JCHR report to find the list of powers that already exist and can be used—the hon. Member for Broxbourne listed them for us.
Our opposition to the Bill in its entirety is made clear by our amendments not to amend the Bill but to remove all but one little clause. That is a radical step, but it   attracted much public and cross-party support. I thank the hon. Members who put their name to those amendments. Unfortunately, as SNP spokesperson, I cannot realistically press more than one of my amendments to a vote—if I could, I would press them all to a vote. In particular, in addition to amendment 1, I would press amendment 12, which would remove suspicion-less stop and search. I hope that Labour will move that amendment so that we can vote on it and, clearly, support it.
We support many amendments from other hon. Members, including all those in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West on behalf of the Joint Committee. We also agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the need for a public inquiry into the impact of the policing of public order on black, Asian and minority ethnic people.
I support new clause 11 on buffer zones in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) but, in answer to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), it will not surprise him or the hon. Lady that we will not vote on it if it is pressed to a vote, because it applies only to England and Wales. The Scottish Government are progressing work on it for Scotland. I agree with everything she said on it and I pay tribute to the work that she and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) have been doing on it for some time.
In closing, we do not need this Bill—nobody needs this Bill. Our right to protest is fundamental. It is the only tool available to many people—most people—to effect real change. The Bill comes on the back of photographic voter ID, restrictions on judicial review, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 that we are yet to feel the full force of. When will the Government stop? When will they put their hands up and say, “We’ve got this wrong”? They need to realise that, instead of slamming their hand down on people who are protesting because they are desperately worried, they should extend a hand of solidarity to them and fix the problems that people are protesting about in the first place.

Nigel Evans: Order. I am expecting four Divisions when the Minister resumes his seat.

Jeremy Quin: I hope that we will have fewer, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that hon. Members will be withdrawing their amendments during my remarks.
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and all hon. Members who have contributed to this lively debate. I know that all hon. Members treat this debate and these issues with the great seriousness and concern that they deserve. With the leave of the House, I will respond to some of the points made throughout the debate and to some of the key amendments.
I will start with the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East—appropriately—which seek to remove the serious disruption prevention orders from the Bill. My hon.  Friend said that he was cold when he turned up today.  I think he misheard me from a sedentary position; I merely said that he had certainly warmed up during his speech.
Our experience of some of the recent protests has shown that the police are encountering the same individuals who are determined to repeatedly inflict disruption on the public. For example, as of July this year, 460 individuals had been arrested a total of 910 times at Just Stop Oil protests, while during Insulate Britain’s campaign, 268 individuals were arrested a total of 977 times. It cannot be right that a small group of individuals can repeatedly commit criminal offences against our roads and railways, to name only a few places, and not face appropriate restrictions.
I have heard arguments from Opposition Members about how serious disruption prevention orders will unfairly infringe on someone’s right to protest. I must state unequivocally that the Government do not agree. As I have said already, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of our democracy, and those who make their voices heard peacefully will not be affected by these changes. Rather, serious disruption prevention orders exist to provide a route to prevent small numbers of individuals who have a track record of deliberately causing serious disruption from using the cover of protest to commit criminal offences or inflict serious disruption on the wider public.

Charles Walker: Will the Minister give way?

Jeremy Quin: I have lots of Members to cover, but I will of course give way.

Charles Walker: The Minister is his usual charming self, but what we are talking about is putting ankle tags on people who have not been convicted of any crime. That just does seem way over the top.

Jeremy Quin: That would be a decision made by a court in very specific circumstances, and I do trust our courts to take appropriate action. They can only do so on the weight of evidence, and they are very used to taking these decisions. After all, there is a tried and tested process whereby injunctions can be sought and obtained to prevent a future harm. I do not think this is as radical as my hon. Friend is suggesting. However, I congratulate him on the points he made, even though I disagree with him, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on his contribution to this point of the debate. I would love to prevail on my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his amendment, but I do not think that is going to happen, and I look forward to opposing it.
Turning to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), I spoke earlier in the debate about why we believe that injunctions are useful. We absolutely accept the point being made by the hon. Lady that they are appropriate when used properly, and that is why we have tabled our amendments. I think ours is a more competent and effective way of achieving our shared objectives.
On new clause 5, which seeks to define the meaning of “serious disruption” for the purposes of this Bill, I have to say that no two protests, nor the operational response required, are ever the same. Being too prescriptive risks the ability of the police to respond to fast-evolving protest tactics while also risking the exploitation of loopholes by those intent on causing as much disruption as possible. That is not to say that I dismiss the principle of this amendment. There is a balance to be struck between a definition that is broad and one that is prescriptive, so while I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s amendment, we will reflect further on its intent.
I turn now to perhaps the most vexed issue in today’s debate—namely, new clause 11, proposed by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). New clause 11 seeks to create 150-metre buffer zones outside abortion clinics in which all activity interfering with a person’s right to access abortion services would be prohibited. As the hon. Lady would accept, that is a blunt instrument. It is there to achieve an objective, but within those 150-metre buffer zones there could be houses and churches, and this would be a national decision covering the 150 metres around all clinics.
At the outset of the debate, I made it clear that, from the Government’s perspective, it is a free vote for members of our party. My good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said that this is a difficult issue to grapple with, and it is indeed difficult. However, I would like to make it clear that it is entirely possible to support totally a woman’s right to an abortion and to view protests outside abortion clinics as abhorrent while still believing that the current legislative framework provides an appropriate response.

Bernard Jenkin: I think the Minister should now be persuaded, particularly as one of his predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has now made it clear that she supports this amendment. It is time for the Government to say that we have to recognise that the present arrangements are not adequate, and we will be thinking about how to build on the arguments that have been presented in new clause 11. Just to rest on the status quo is not a sufficient response, however the Government vote today.

Jeremy Quin: I sympathise with the sentiment behind new clause 11. I hope we all agree that it is wholly unacceptable for women to feel harassed or intimidated when accessing abortion services. However, bearing in mind the size, scale and frequency of those protests, it is still our view that placing a nationwide blanket ban on protests outside all abortion clinics in England and Wales would be a blunt approach and disproportionate given the existing powers that can and should be used.

Stella Creasy: rose—

Jeremy Quin: I give way to the hon. Lady as this is her new clause.

Stella Creasy: I know that the Minister is listening both to the testimony of previous colleagues and the sentiment across the House, but might the answer to this lie in the great institutions of this place, in that we should accept this amendment today and seek to further refine how it could work in the other place? We could today send a message to the other place that we will grapple with the issue and resolve it. The testimony  from the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), a former Home Office Minister, powerfully set out that this is a road to travel. The challenge in this place is that without those opportunities for scrutiny and further refinement, the status quo will remain, and what the Minister is hearing from across the House is that the status quo is not acceptable. Might that not be a way forward?

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle mentioned the reviews that have been done: the review conducted in 2018 went into this in great depth and there has been further work since, and the hon. Lady referred to further work being done in relation to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That maintained the Government position that the current arrangements are still proportionate. There is legislation; the Public Order Act 1986 and the PSPOs provide those routes, and we continue to believe that is proportionate, but this is ongoing work and we need to continue to ensure that it is still proportionate. I will be reviewing and making certain that I understand fully the pattern of protests and the effectiveness and indeed the cost of PSPOs, and I will certainly make sure that that work is constantly refreshed if the House agrees we should maintain the current legislative environment.
There are existing laws to protect people from harassment and intimidation outside abortion clinics. The police have robust powers to deal with protests that obstruct access to clinics, and cause alarm, harassment or distress, and where protests cause harm, we expect the police and local authorities to work together at the local level to respond in a way that takes into consideration the local facts, issues and circumstances. In addition, local authorities already have powers to implement PSPOs; these can be introduced when a local authority is satisfied that protests are having, or are likely to have, a detrimental effect. We have seen increased use of these in recent weeks, with five local authorities imposing an order outside abortion clinics.

Fiona Bruce: Because some of our colleagues will not have been able to follow the whole debate, will the Minister confirm what I believe he is saying, which is that he personally will vote against new clause 11 this afternoon?

Jeremy Quin: It is a free vote and I will be voting against the amendment. I believe the powers and legislative environment we have are appropriate at the current juncture, and that is the position the Government have taken in the past. It is also the case that we continue to do work on this; I will continue to ensure that we are reviewing the scale of protests, the adequacy of the current legislative framework, and the effectiveness and cost of PSPOs. We need to maintain that work although I will be voting against the amendment this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said that, if the new clause falls, he will not give up. I would have been surprised had he said anything else, and I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Walthamstow gave up if she lost the vote. As I said, we will continue to review and assess this area, but it is important to get it right. There are powerful arguments on both sides of the debate, as enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton  (Fiona Bruce), the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and, on the other side, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle and my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Harwich and North Essex. I have set out how, through the current legislation and PSPOs, a lot can be done. The House will determine whether it believes that to be insufficient.
I turn to new clauses 13 and 14 tabled, again, by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who is a passionate campaigner on these issues. In last year’s “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy”, we confirmed that we are looking carefully at where there may be gaps in existing law and how a specific offence of public sexual harassment could address them. In the light of that work, just before summer recess, we launched a targeted consultation on whether there should be a specific offence of public sexual harassment and, if so, what it should look like. The hon. Lady knows that. The consultation closed in September, and we are grateful to her for sending us her comments. We are working at pace to analyse the responses and to determine the best way forward. I reassure her that, for example, her comments on foreseeability of intent are absolutely part of that consultation. What I cannot do—I am sorry to disappoint her—is give a commitment today on our next steps. That would not be appropriate until we fully analyse the consultation. I look forward to sharing our views with the House as soon as possible.
I turn to the several amendments tabled on the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Again, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the Committee for the vital work that they do in supporting parliamentary scrutiny, as was referred to by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Amendments 28, 30, 35 and 37 aim to move the burden of proof for a reasonable excuse from the defendant to the prosecution for the relevant offences. As we made clear in our formal response to the Committee’s report, whether or not someone has a reasonable excuse for their actions is specific to each incident, and we see it as entirely appropriate that the defendant who committed the offence in the first place and has personal knowledge of those facts is required to prove them. Beyond that, our courts are experts in assessing whether an individual has a reasonable excuse for a multitude of criminal offences. I do not see the value in placing that burden on the prosecution.
Amendments 32, 36 and 38 seek to require the courts to have particular regard to articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights when assessing whether someone has a reasonable excuse for offences. Courts and other public bodies are already obliged to act compatibly with ECHR, and we do not believe that it is necessary to repeat that obligation.
Finally, several amendments seek to narrow the Bill’s scope. I will not address each individual amendment. The Government believe that the scope of the offences is not only appropriate but proportionate to the serious disruption inflicted.
I turn to a couple of other amendments.

Alicia Kearns: rose—

Jeremy Quin: I was about to turn to my hon. Friend. She tabled amendments 51 and 52, which would add farms and food production infrastructure to the list of key national infrastructure. That would significantly increase the scope of the Bill. As she is aware, there are some 216,000 farm holdings and 13,560 food and drink manufacturers—it goes on. However, I understand and am sympathetic to the point she made about the importance of food and food manufacture. I will take up with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether we need to look further at that area in the Bill, and I will share with her the results of that at pace.

Alicia Kearns: I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that the actions of vegan militias over the summer in disrupting milk supply chains were unacceptable. They hurt our farmers and our food security. When he tasks his officials and those of DEFRA to look at that, will he commit to meeting me in December and consider secondary legislation to protect our food producers and our food security?

Jeremy Quin: I am delighted to confirm that I will meet my hon. Friend in December and talk through our view with her, having discussed it. I am sympathetic to how food is an important aspect of our national resilience.
On stop and search, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for tabling new clauses 9 and 10, and to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for speaking to them so capably. The Home Office continues to publish extensive data on the use of stop and search to drive transparency. That will continue with the introduction of these new powers. As my predecessor did in Committee, I can assure the hon. Lady that data on the use of these powers will be collected and published. It will be broken down by age, gender and ethnicity and include the outcome of the search, as for existing stop-and-search powers. On the creation of an independent reviewer of the powers, I point the hon. Lady to the existing independent bodies, to which she referred, the IOPC and His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, which will ensure that proper oversight of the powers is embedded in its inspections.
Before I conclude, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. I call on the House to back the Government amendments and to reject any amendments that would make it more difficult to tackle the selfish minority of individuals who are intent on wreaking havoc on the lives of ordinary people.

Nigel Evans: As I said earlier, I am anticipating four Divisions. The first one will, I believe, be on new clause 4. If somebody from the SNP could inform the Chair who their Tellers might be, should they decide to have a vote on their amendment, I would be extremely grateful.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8 - Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand

(1) This section applies to proceedings brought by the Secretary of State under section (Power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings) (power of Secretary of State to bring proceedings).
(2) If the court grants an injunction which prohibits conduct which—
(a) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person, or
(b) is capable of having a serious adverse effect on public safety,
it may, if subsection (3) applies, attach a power of arrest to any provision of the injunction.
(3) This subsection applies if the Secretary of State applies to the court to attach the power of arrest and the court thinks that—
(a) the conduct mentioned in subsection (2) consists of or includes the use or threatened use of violence, or
(b) there is a significant risk of harm to—
(i) in the case of conduct mentioned in subsection (2)(a), the person mentioned in that provision, and
(ii) in the case of conduct mentioned in subsection (2)(b), the public or a section of the public.
(4) Where a power of arrest is attached to any provision of an injunction under subsection (2), a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom the constable has reasonable cause for suspecting to be in breach of that provision.
(5) After making an arrest under subsection (4) the constable must as soon as is reasonably practicable inform the Secretary of State.
(6) Where a person is arrested under subsection (4)—
(a) the person must appear before the court within the period of 24 hours beginning at the time of arrest, and
(b) if the matter is not then disposed of forthwith, the court may remand the person.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6), when calculating the period of 24 hours referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection, no account is to be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.
(8) Schedule (Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand) applies in relation to the power to remand under subsection (6).
(9) If the court has reason to consider that a medical report will be required, the power to remand a person under subsection (6) may be exercised for the purpose of enabling a medical examination and report to be made.
(10) If such a power is so exercised the adjournment is not to be in force—
(a) for more than three weeks at a time in a case where the court remands the accused person in custody, or
(b) for more than four weeks at a time in any other case.
(11) If there is reason to suspect that a person who has been arrested under subsection (4) is suffering from mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 the court is to have the same power to make an order under section 35 of that Act (remand for report on accused's mental condition) as the Crown Court has under that section in the case of an accused person within the meaning of that section.
(12) In this section—
“harm” includes serious ill-treatment or abuse (whether physical or not);
“the court” means the High Court or the county court and includes—
(a) in relation to the High Court, a judge of that court, and
(b) in relation to the county court, a judge of that court.”—(Jeremy Quin.)
This new clause contains provision for the court to attach powers of arrest to an injunction granted in proceedings brought in the name of the Secretary of State in accordance with NC7. This new clause also contains related provisions in connection with the remand of arrested persons .
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services

“(1) Upon an application by a person under subsection (4), an injunction may be ordered by a Judge of the High Court against ‘persons unknown’ in order to prevent a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services occasioned by a public procession or public assembly.
(2) The “persons unknown” may be—
(a) anonymous persons taking part in a public process or public assembly who are identifiable at the time of the proceedings; and/or
(b) persons not presently taking part in a public procession or public assembly protest but who will in future join such a public procession or public assembly.
(3) The conditions under which such an injunction may be granted are as follows—
(a) there must be a real and imminent risk of a tort being committed which would result in a serious disruption to the effective movement of any essential goods or any essential services;
(b) a method of service must be set out in the order which may reasonably be expected to bring the proceedings to the attention of the “persons unknown”;
(c) the “persons unknown” must be defined in the order by reference to their conduct which is alleged to be unlawful;
(d) the acts prohibited by the order must correspond with the threatened tort;
(e) the order may only prohibit lawful conduct if there is no other proportionate means of protecting the effective movement of essential goods or essential services;
(f) the terms of the order must set out what act(s) the persons potentially affected by the order must not do;
(g) the terms of the order must set out a defined geographical area to which the order relates; and
(h) the terms of the order must set out a temporal period to which the order relates, following which the order will lapse unless a further order is made upon a further application by the applicant.
(4) An applicant for an injunction to prevent serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services may be—
(a) a local authority with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates;
(b) a chief constable with responsibility for all or part of the geographical area to which the proposed order relates; or
(c) a person resident in, or carrying on a business within, the geographical area to which the proposed order relates.
(5) A “serious disruption to effective movement of essential goods or services” includes a prolonged disruption to—
(a) the effective movement of the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel;
(b) a system of communication;
(c) access to a place of worship;
(d) access to a transport facility;
(e) access to an educational institution; and
(f) access to a service relating to health.”—(Sarah Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 313.
Question accordingly negatived.
More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 5 - Definition of “serious disruption”

“(1) For the purposes of this Act, ‘serious disruption’ means—
(a) significant delay to the delivery of a time-sensitive product to consumers of that product, or
(b) prolonged disruption of access to any essential goods or any essential service, including, in particular, access to—
(i) the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(ii) a system of communication,
(iii) a place of worship,
(iv) a place of worship,
(v) an educational institution, or
(vi) a service relating to health.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) a ‘time-sensitive product’ means a product whose value or use to its consumers may be significantly reduced by a delay in the supply of the product to them.”—(Sarah Jones.)
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 311.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 11 - Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services

“(1) A person who is within a buffer zone and who interferes with any person’s decision to access, provide, or facilitate the provision of abortion services in that buffer zone is guilty of an offence.
(2) A “buffer zone” means an area which is within a boundary which is 150 metres from any part of an abortion clinic or any access point to any building or site that contains an abortion clinic and is—
(a) on or adjacent to a public highway or public right of way,
(b) in an open space to which the public has access,
(c) within the curtilage of an abortion clinic, or
(d) in any location that is visible from a public highway, public right of way, open space to which the public have access, or the curtilage of an abortion clinic.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “interferes with” means—
(a) seeks to influence,
(b) persistently, continuously or repeatedly occupies,
(c) impedes or threatens,
(d) intimidates or harasses,
(e) advises or persuades, attempts to advise or persuade, or otherwise expresses opinion,
(f) informs or attempts to inform about abortion services by any means, including, without limitation, graphic, physical, verbal or written means, or
(g) sketches, photographs, records, stores, broadcasts, or transmits images, audio, likenesses or personal data of any person without express consent.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—
(a) in the first instance—
(i) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months,
(ii) to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or
(iii) to both; and
(b) on further instances—
(i) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or to both, or
(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or to both.
(5) Nothing in this section applies to—
(a) anything done in the course of providing, or facilitating the provision of, abortion services in an abortion clinic,
(b) anything done in the course of providing medical care within a GP practice, hospital or other healthcare facility,
(c) the operation of a camera if its coverage of persons accessing or attempting to access an abortion clinic is incidental and the camera or footage is not used for any of the purposes listed in subsection (3), and
(d) a police officer acting properly in the course of their duties.”—(Stella Creasy.)
This new clause would introduce areas around abortion clinics and hospitals (buffer zones) where interference with, and intimidation or harassment of, women accessing or people providing abortion services would be an offence.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 110.
Question accordingly agreed to.
New clause 11 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 16 - Serious disruption prevention order made on conviction

Amendment proposed: 1, page 18, line 7, leave out clause 16—(Anne McLaughlin.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 302.
Question accordingly negatived.

New Schedule 1 - Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: powers to remand

“Introductory
1 (1) This Schedule applies where the court has power to remand a person under subsection (6) of section (Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand) (injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand).
(2) In this Schedule “the court” has the same meaning as in that section.
Remand in custody or on bail
2 (1) The court may—
(a) remand the person in custody, that is, commit the person to custody to be brought before the court at the end of the period of remand or at such earlier time as the court may require, or
(b) remand the person on bail, in accordance with the following provisions.
(2) The court may remand the person on bail—
(a) by taking from the person a recognizance, with or without sureties, conditioned as provided in paragraph 3, or
(b) by fixing the amount of the recognizances with a view to their being taken subsequently, and in the meantime committing the person to custody as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a).
(3) Where a person is brought before the court after remand, the court may further remand the person.
3 (1) Where a person is remanded on bail, the court may direct that the person’s recognizance be conditioned for the person’s appearance—
(a) before that court at the end of the period of remand, or
(b) at every time and place to which during the course of the proceedings the hearing may from time to time be adjourned.
(2) Where a recognizance is conditioned for a person's appearance as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b), the fixing of any time for the person next to appear is deemed to be a remand.
(3) Nothing in this paragraph affects the power of the court at any subsequent hearing to remand the person afresh.
4 (1) The court must not remand a person for a period exceeding eight clear days except that—
(a) if the court remands the person on bail, it may remand the person for a longer period if the person and the other party consent, and
(b) if the court adjourns a case under section (Injunctions in Secretary of State proceedings: power of arrest and remand)(9) (remand for medical examination and report) the court may remand the person for the period of adjournment.
(2) Where the court has the power to remand a person in custody it may, if the remand is for a period not exceeding three clear days, commit the person to the custody of a constable.
Further remand
5 (1) If the court is satisfied that a person who has been remanded is unable by reason of illness or accident to appear or be brought before the court at the expiration of the period for which the person was remanded, the court may, in the person’s absence, remand the person for a further time.
(2) The power mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) may, in the case of a person who was remanded on bail, be exercised by enlarging the person’s recognizance and those of any sureties for the person to a later time.
(3) Where a person remanded on bail is bound to appear before the court at any time and the court has no power to remand the person under sub-paragraph (1), the court may in the person’s absence enlarge the person’s recognizance and those of any sureties for the person to a later time.
(4) The enlargement of the person’s recognizance is to be deemed to be a further remand.
(5) Paragraph 4(1) (limit of remand) does not apply to the exercise of the powers conferred by this paragraph.
Postponement and taking recognizance
6 Where under paragraph 2(2)(b) the court fixes the amount in which the principal and their sureties, if any, are to be bound, the recognizance may afterwards be taken by such person as may be prescribed by rules of court, with the same consequences as if it had been entered into before the court.
Requirements imposed on remand on bail
7 The court may when remanding a person on bail under this Schedule require the person to comply, before release on bail or later, with such requirements as appear to the court to be necessary to secure that the person does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.”—(Jeremy Quin.)
This new Schedule contains provisions relating to the remand of persons arrested for breaching a provision of an injunction granted in proceedings brought by the Secretary of State in accordance with NC7.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
Amendment made: 50, Title, line 3, after “order;” insert
“to make provision about proceedings by the Secretary of State relating to protest-related activities;”—(Jeremy Quin.)
This amendment is consequential on NC7 and NC8.
Third Reading

Suella Braverman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Public Order Bill reflects the Government’s duty to put the safety and interests of the law-abiding majority first. We are on their side, not the side of extremists who stick themselves to trains, glue themselves to roads, interfere with newspaper distribution, vandalise properties, disrupt the fuel supply, disrupt this Chamber, or block ambulances. The growing tendency of those with strong opinions to mix their expression with acts of violence cannot and will not be tolerated.
The most generous interpretation of the kind of characters who glue themselves to roads is that they are dangerously deluded, but in fact—much worse—many of them have the deranged notion that their ends justify any means whatever. In the eyes of the militant protesters, the everyday priorities of the hard-working, law-abiding, patriotic majority can always be disregarded in pursuit of their warped schemes.
These extremists stop people from earning a living, gaining an education or caring for a loved one in need. Ordinary people who are working, learning or caring are never deemed by the extremists as important enough to stand in the way of their plots and plans. No Government should fail in their duty to protect their citizens from such abuse, and this Government will always put the law-abiding majority first and foremost.

Marco Longhi: Does the Home Secretary agree that the police should consider the wider, cumulative impacts of protests on a local community, rather than a  narrow, notional assessment, in isolation, of whether a serious disruption threshold has been reached? In other words, can we get the police to start locking them up, please?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Fundamentally, police and key partners should view the impacts of disruption cumulatively. The clock should not be reset every day and in each location; they need to look at the tactics in the round.
We need the police to act proactively, decidedly and diligently, so there are various factors that they need to include in their assessment of serious disruption. They need to consider the overall length and the time and impact on communities. They need to look at the disruption to a general area. They need to look at the police resources that have been drained by the action. They need to look holistically and actively at how they take action.

Gareth Bacon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the strict limitation of police resources, the police should perhaps deploy those resources on dealing with the guerrilla tactics that are putting the people of London at risk of harm and less time policing pronouns on Twitter?

Suella Braverman: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is close to my heart, which is that we need our police officers—our brave men and women, the majority of whom are heroes, frankly, in this nation’s law enforcement and security—to be focusing on our priorities and the priorities of the law-abiding majority. Common sense policing means focusing on targeting and fighting the bad guys, fighting the criminals and stopping crime, not policing pronouns and not pandering to politically correct campaigns.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Suella Braverman: I will make progress, I am afraid.
No Government should fail in their duty to protect their citizens from such abuse, and this Government will always put the law-abiding majority first. In a democracy, we make policy through civilised debate and at the ballot box, not through mob rule and not by visiting chaos and misery on our fellow citizens.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Suella Braverman: I am afraid I do not have much time.
When I was the Attorney General, I went to court to establish that it is not a human right to commit criminal damage. The Court of Appeal agreed with me in the Colston statue case that serious and violent disorder crosses a line when it comes to freedom of expression. That is common sense to the law-abiding majority.
Since 1 October alone, the Metropolitan police have made over 450 arrests linked to Just Stop Oil, and I welcome this, but more must be done. That is why I welcome the fact that, today, Transport for London has succeeded in securing an injunction to protect key parts of the London roads network. That is an important step forward in the fight against extremists. However, these resources are vital and precious, and this has   drained approximately 2,000 officer days at the Met already. Those are resources that are not dealing with knife crime and are not dealing with violence against women and girls.
I am afraid to say—and I will come to a close soon—that that is why it was a central purpose of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, now an Act, to properly empower the police in face of the protests, yet Opposition Members voted against it. Had Opposition Members in the other place not blocked these measures when they were in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the police would have already had many of the powers in this Bill and the British people would not have been put through this grief. Yes, I am afraid that it is the Labour party, the Lib Dems, the coalition of chaos, the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati and, dare I say, the anti-growth coalition that we have to thank for the disruption we are seeing on our roads today. I urge Opposition MPs and Members of the other place to take this second chance, do the right thing, respect the rights of the law-abiding majority and support this Bill.

Rosie Winterton: There is very little time left. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: I just think it is astonishing: the Home Secretary actually talked about a “coalition of chaos”, and we can see it in front of us as I speak. I understand that the Government do have concerns in that they face issues with a selfish majority wreaking havoc, and someone who is resisting all the attempts of the powers that be to remove them—causing serious disruption, disorder and chaos, with serious consequences for the public, businesses, politics and financial markets—but they had glued themselves under the desk. We wish Conservative Members luck with their attempts to extricate another failing Tory Prime Minister from No. 10, but I suggest that that is not a reason to change the law for everyone else.
This is the second Public Order Bill in the space of six months. The Government could have got through a victims Bill by now; they chose not to. They could have put more time into action on violence against women and girls; they chose not to. Instead, they are repeating the same debates we have had already. The Home Secretary referred to acts of violence and blocking roads. These are, rightly, already crimes. These are all, rightly, already offences. In fact, this Conservative Government have put fewer thugs and criminals behind bars because prosecutions for violent crime have plummeted on their watch. Antisocial behaviour action in many areas has totally collapsed.
We have seen certain things recently that have angered all of us. Defacing works of art is a total disgrace. Blocking roads and preventing ambulances from getting through is appalling. Both those are rightly against the law already, and we have seen people rightly arrested and charged for criminal damage and for blocking highways. We support the action of Transport for London in taking out injunctions. That is why we have argued from the start for making taking injunction action smoother for organisations, but today Members from all parts of this House have also stood up for the  principles of peaceful protest in the face of the truly appalling images we have seen from outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, including a serious assault that put one protestor in hospital.
Parliament must stand up for peaceful rights; as the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) rightly said earlier today, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society, and in our country everyone has the right to express their views peacefully. That is why we have to make sure that when we legislate in these areas we do so with care, because in a democracy people need the freedom to speak out against authority and make their views heard, and we should also have protections and safeguards against serious disruption to essential services.
That is why we put forward measures; that is why we have supported buffer zones around abortion clinics, and that is why we have put forward measures in previous Bills on vaccine clinics and making sure people could not be targeted by harassment and intimidation. Hon. Friends have talked about the legislation that is already in place, but the measures in the Bill will not tackle this issue. Instead they mean a police inspector will have the power to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest regardless of whether they suspect them of being involved in committing a criminal offence. It could mean people being stopped and searched in Parliament Square pretty much any day of the week when protests are taking place.
The Home Secretary says that she sees herself as a champion of freedom of speech and expression. She has said that freedom of speech must be protected, but, it turns out, not if it is too noisy. Speaking is fine, but speaking too loudly could be a criminal offence. She says that being offended goes hand in hand with free speech, but she has made it an offence to be seriously annoying. Defend offence but not annoyance—it is totally illogical.
Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 234.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House (tODAY)

Ordered,
That at today’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on
(1) the Motions in the name of Penny Mordaunt relating to (i) Standards: Appeals and Procedural Protocol and (ii) Standing Orders Etc. (Committee on Standards, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Independent Expert Panel) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and
(2) the Motion in the name of Sir Charles Walker relating to Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Appointment) not later than 30 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion, or two hours after the commencement of the proceedings relating to (i) Standards: Appeals and Procedural Protocol and (ii) Standing Orders Etc. (Committee on Standards, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Independent Expert Panel), whichever is the later; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Standards

[Relevant documents: First Report of the Committee on Standards, New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviour in Parliament, HC 227; Second Report of the Committee on Standards, Code of Conduct: Procedural Protocol, HC 378; and the Government response, HC 709.]

Rosie Winterton: I must inform the House that amendments (a) and (b) to motion 6 have been selected, and I will call Wendy Chamberlain to move them at the end of the debate.

Penny Mordaunt: I beg to move,
That—
(1) this House notes the First Report from the Committee on Standards, on New Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules: promoting appropriate values, attitudes and behaviours in Parliament (HC 227), and approves the recommendations relating to appeals and the Procedural Protocol in paragraphs 141–143, 151, 153, 155–157, 166 and 169 of that Report.
(2) this House approves the Second Report from the Committee on Standards on the Code of Conduct: Procedural Protocol (HC 378), and the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct annexed to that Report, with immediate effect, subject to the following amendments to the Protocol:
(a) In paragraph 6, leave out from “under the Code” to end;
(b) In paragraph 7, leave out “and the rules relating to upholding the Code (the numbered paragraphs in the Code of Conduct)”;
(c) In paragraph 16, leave out “, under rule 10 of the Code”;
(d) In paragraph 18, leave out “rule 11” and insert “paragraph 17”;
(e) In paragraph 22, leave out “rules 1 or 16 in the Code” and insert “paragraph 18 of the Code, or the provision in paragraph 21 of the Code that ‘Failure to comply with a sanction imposed by a subpanel of the Independent Expert Panel shall be treated as a breach of the Code’”;
(f) Leave out paragraph 32 and insert, “Paragraph 20 of the Code provides that ‘The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House, and with the Committee on Standards and the Independent Expert Panel in any subsequent consideration of a case. Members must not lobby members of the Committee on Standards or the Independent Expert Panel; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; or the staff of those bodies in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a breach or a sanction in an individual case.’”
(g) Leave out paragraph 62;
(h) In paragraph 83, leave out “rule 11” and insert “paragraph 17”;
(i) In paragraph 118, after “legal or medical adviser”, insert “; and/or d) a Member’s own staff”.
(j) Leave out paragraph 126 and insert, “Paragraph 20 of the Code provides that ‘The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House, and with the Committee on Standards and the Independent Expert  Panel in any subsequent consideration of a case. Members must not lobby members of the Committee on Standards or the Independent Expert Panel; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; or the staff of those bodies in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a breach or a sanction in an individual case.’”
(3) Paragraph 20 of the Code of Conduct for Members (HC (2017-19) 1882) be amended to read as follows: “The Commissioner may investigate a specific matter relating to a Member’s adherence to the rules of conduct under the Code. Members shall cooperate, at all stages, with any such investigation by or under the authority of the House, and with the Committee on Standards and the Independent Expert Panel in any subsequent consideration of a case. Members must not lobby members of the Committee on Standards or the Independent Expert Panel; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; or the staff of those bodies in a manner calculated or intended to influence their consideration of a breach or a sanction in an individual case.”
(4) the Committee on Standards shall have power to make any minor or purely administrative changes to the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct, including those necessary to reflect any future decisions of the House relating to the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members.
(5) Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (HC (2017-19) 1882) shall no longer have effect
(6) previous Resolutions of this House in relation to the conduct of Members shall be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Motion 6 on Standing Orders etc. (Committee on Standards, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Independent Expert Panel).
Amendment (a).
Amendment (b).

Penny Mordaunt: The House is being asked to consider the creation of an appeals process for non-Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases to be heard by the Independent Expert Panel. The motion would introduce the formal appeals process that Sir Ernest Ryder recommended and proposes that the panel would hear appeals against the decisions and sanctions of the Committee on Standards. The motion also puts to the House the new procedural protocol, which would sit alongside the new appeals process.
I am grateful to the Committee on Standards for its work reviewing the code of conduct for Members and the overall operation of the standards system in the House of Commons. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have had some discussions with the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who I look forward to hearing from today. I assure him and the House that the Government have carefully considered his Committee’s recommendations, alongside the procedural protocol and covering report.
I am sure that the whole House agrees that Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life and that the procedures we have in place must be fair, robust and command the respect and confidence both of Members and the wider public. I believe that today’s motion takes a positive step in the right direction.
There are other issues that are not covered in the motions today, and I plan to seek consensus on a wider package and to come back to the House in due course, but it is good to make progress on the issues as we can.
Before coming to the substance of today’s motion, I wish to briefly cover some areas in relation to the wider proposed package of changes from the Committee on Standards that we are not debating today. Let me be clear: I am very conscious that there is further progress to be made and the House should have the opportunity to consider the additional recommendations proposed by the Committee. I reassure the House and the Committee that we are seeking to identify solutions that can command cross-party support on those outstanding issues.
Specifically, the Committee made recommendations on measures to improve the transparency and timeliness of ministerial declarations. The Government are clear in their views that the rules regulating Members’ interests and ministerial interests are necessarily distinct, reflecting the underlying constitutional principle of the separation of powers. There are differences between the role of an MP and that of a Minister and, reflecting that, the rules differ on what interests are permitted and how potential conflicts of interest are managed. There are clear rules regarding the registration of interests and the receipt of gifts in the ministerial code and Ministers should, and do, take their responsibilities very seriously. Nevertheless, I recognise the concerns of the Committee. Since being appointed Leader of the House, I have raised those concerns and have instructed officials to bring forward proposals for an improved system.
I can confirm to the House that revised guidance on ministerial transparency data will be published in the coming weeks. We will also publish it on gov.uk for the first time. The guidance has been updated to more closely reflect modern working practices and Ministers’ obligations under the ministerial code.
It is important that the Government conduct ourselves openly. I will continue to work with the Cabinet Office and across Government to ensure that we are fulfilling our obligations. In doing so, I keep very much in mind the challenge set for me by the Chair of the Committee on Standards: that a Member who attends an event such as the BAFTAs should report in a particular way, so a Minister who attends the same event should report in a similar way and their interests should be transparent to the public. I hope that the House and the Committee will support these changes; I will happily engage with the Committee should they not have the desired effect. [Interruption.] For the benefit of Hansard, the Chair of the Committee chuckled knowingly.
The House will be aware that an appeals process is already in place within some aspects of the parliamentary standards system. Those who are subject to investigation under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme have the right of appeal to the Independent Expert Panel, which is chaired by the former High Court judge Sir Stephen Irwin. The ICGS and the IEP have been an essential part of achieving positive culture change in the House and demonstrating its rigorous judicial process, its transparency of operation and the right to appeal.
The Government have therefore welcomed Sir Ernest Ryder’s report and his timely review of the Commons standards system and its compatibility with the principles of fairness and natural justice. As we set out in a letter to the Committee on Standards, the Government supported  the majority of the proposals, including the introduction of a formal appeals process. We note that the Committee has accepted all the recommendations, with a few minor modifications. I welcome the proposal that appeals be heard by an independent body with judicial expertise. We also welcome Sir Ernest’s consideration of the grounds for appeal and the acceptance that the Independent Expert Panel is the appropriate body to hear appeals.
We propose two main amendments to the procedural protocol. First, we propose to amend paragraph 118 to allow MPs to inform their own staff in the event that they are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Secondly, we propose to leave out paragraph 62 on Members recusing themselves if not present for all but a “small proportion” of evidence sessions. These amendments reflect the Government’s position, as set out in our response to the Committee; I hope that the House and the Committee will support them. The other proposed amendments are purely technical changes to ensure that the protocol works with the current version of the rules and guide.
I wish to speak briefly about amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and others. The amendments stipulate that
“no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”
That stipulation would apply both to conduct motions related to breaches of the code of conduct and to motions related to the ICGS. This is, of course, a matter for the House to consider. I note that the Committee on Standards chose not to pursue the issue in detail as part of the inquiry.
I am aware that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), has raised the issue of Members being permitted to vote on their own suspension. My predecessor wrote in response to her that there would be benefit in the Committee’s looking into whether such changes are needed. If necessary, they could be put to the House for consideration. Hon. Members will be aware that there is a convention that Members should not participate in such votes. In our parliamentary democracy, conventions guide how we work in this place, and codification of these norms should be carefully considered; I would therefore welcome it if the matter were considered by the appropriate Committee. Subject to its approval, the Government would be happy to bring the matter back to the Floor of the House for approval in due course.
If there is no objection from the Chair of the Committee on Standards or from other hon. Members present, I would certainly be content to support these amendments.

Chris Bryant: I see no reason why we should not simply put what is already a convention into, as it were, the statutes of the House—the Standing Orders. I support the motion and, looking around the Chamber and seeing other members of the Committee who are present, I think that they will as well. I think it would save us all a bit of time if we just got on with it and agreed to the amendments.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

Karen Bradley: May I add my view, as Chair of the Procedure Committee? I feel that the amendments are absolutely fine, and we should be happy to see them passed tonight.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for her support for the amendments. We are hopefully saving ourselves some time, and efficiency is always great to see. It is important to point out, however, that if Members did object and wanted the Committee to look at this, they could oppose the amendments, which are obviously subject, potentially, to a vote tonight.
We support the work being undertaken to introduce measures to empower the standards system in Parliament, and I am committed to continuing conversations both within Government and with parliamentary colleagues to continue to introduce improvements proposed by the Committee on a cross-party basis. I assure the House that my door is always open and I am always willing to discuss these matters with all Members. I hope that the House will approve the proposed changes, and I commend them to the House.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for tabling the motions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his Committee for all the hard work that they have put into their inquiries and reports on standards over many months. I really would have liked to see all that work recognised in the motion today. After months of calling on the Leader of the House and her predecessors to implement the Standards Committee’s full recommendations, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will have imagined my initial excitement when I heard the words “Members’ code of conduct” during her recent business statement, but sadly that turned to some disappointment when I found that it did not include all the Committee’s work to strengthen standards in Parliament. I understand what the right hon. Lady has said, but I will come back to that shortly.
Let me now turn to the substance of our debate: the appeals process. Let me first place on the record my thanks and welcome for the work that Sir Ernest Ryder has done on the House’s current system for the Standards Committee. It has been helpful to have a well-respected external figure investigating whether or not our existing standards needed to be improved or strengthened. I know that the Committee made good use of Sir Ernest’s extensive experience when considering the important issues of fairness, natural justice and the right of appeal, and I note that he gave thoughtful and considered support to our standards system overall. I picked out the issues of fairness, natural justice and the right of appeal because I seem to remember those words being used in a debate on 3 or 4 November 2021 which, I am afraid, did not show the House in a good light. That is partly why we are here today.
Sir Ernest proposed that there should be a right of appeal against both the findings of the Standards Committee and any sanctions that it imposed or recommended. It seems wholly sensible that such an appeal should be to an independent body with judicial  expertise, and that leads us inevitably to the Independent Expert Panel. I am assured that its chair, the right hon. Sir Stephen Irwin, has said that the panel should be able to take on this role, and that it should be able to manage the workload without expanding the current panel size of eight. I am grateful to him for that confirmation. I assure the Leader of the House that she has my support on the motions, and that they will be supported by the Opposition.
However, let me turn to the slightly wider but related issue of standards in general and, in particular, standards and ethics in parliamentary and governmental life. It was the well-respected former Cabinet Secretary Lord O’Donnell who said recently, “It’s always best to look at reasons why your predecessor fell and fix that.” Unfortunately, however—and I say this with disappointment and sadness, because it affects all of us in this place—everything we have heard from the current Prime Minister, not just during her leadership campaign but in the context of her lack of action since taking office, suggests so far that we are in for more of the same when it comes to trashing standards. I wanted to believe that that was not so, but the Prime Minister even refused to say that she would appoint an independent ethics adviser after the previous two had resigned—admittedly, under the previous Prime Minister—in despair.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has said that the Government are committed to appointing one, but I want to see some urgency. It would be reassuring for the House and for the country if the Prime Minister could commit to appointing that much-needed ethics advisor.
On parliamentary standards specifically, there should have been a lot more in the motion—namely, the rest of the recommendations, in my view. I thank the Leader of the House for her update, and she has been extremely co-operative with me and my office on this, but again we need some urgency to repair the damage that has been done by some—not all—on the Government side to the public’s view of how we conduct ourselves in this place and the surrounding neighbourhood.
In response to my questioning on this at business questions last Thursday, the Leader of the House said:
“It is not that we are not doing them”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 260.]
I absolutely believe her, but does this mean that the Government will bring forward a motion to cover all the Standards Committee’s recommendations? I get that sense from what she has said, and I would like to know that that is the general direction of travel, but if not, why not? Can she tell us which ones the Government like and which ones they do not? I would be grateful if she could give us a much more specific timeframe for when they will be brought forward.
I welcome the assurances that the Leader of the House has given, but when it comes to parliamentary standards and the Tories, I think she probably understands why the public are feeling a lack of trust. Unfortunately, it is the party that refused to fix a loophole that let one Member off the hook for a particular misdemeanour. It is the party that was prepared to change the rules retrospectively seemingly to support cash for access but not to stop sexual harassment.
I do not kid myself that there was ever a golden age when the public saw us all as completely trustworthy and the holders of the highest standards, even though I  believe that most of us in this House absolutely are. However, the public need to—and at times have been able to—trust the system of standards enforcement and sanctions around our general principles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda once told me, there have been rules on how MPs should behave honourably since 1695. Since that time, the rules have only ever gone in one direction, which is to be strengthened—that is, until some Conservative Members unfortunately sought to drag them backwards during the Owen Patterson affair, which showed all too clearly that we have, in Conservative Members, some people who seem to be willing to change the rules retrospectively if they or their mates get caught.
Until we see a motion on the Order Paper covering all the Standards Committee’s recommendations—or some form of them—we can only assume or guess that the Government have apprehensions about bringing them forward. Banning MPs from doing paid consultancy work and increasing the transparency of Members’ interests are measures that Labour has long been calling for, and I believe that there is cross-party support for them. I have referred to the Owen Paterson affair with good reason, because that was the place where some of those concerns grew really strong.
We will of course support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It seems a great pity that they needed to be put into writing, but evidently they did—

Wendy Chamberlain: indicated assent.

Thangam Debbonaire: I see that the hon. Member is nodding. I support the amendment and the motions, but I want to put on the record that if we were in government and I were at the other Dispatch Box, I would want to enact the Standards Committee’s recommendations as soon as possible.
In that vein, can I urge the Leader of the House to bring forward a further motion to do the work that she has referred to? She will find that she has support from this side for any co-operative and collaborative work that she wishes to do, and even for any critical or difficult work. We stand ready to work with her. This is not a matter that should be party political, although I have made some party political points because unfortunately it has been shown to be so in the past year. I will support the motions and the amendments, and I commend the report and the inquiries of the Standards Committee to all right hon. and hon. Members.

Wendy Chamberlain: I rise today to speak in favour of the two amendments on the Order Paper in my name. I will confine my comments to those amendment, but first I want to echo the expressions of thanks to the Standards Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for their work. I also offer my thanks to the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), the Chair of the Procedure Committee, who met me earlier this year in relation to this issue. I am grateful to her and her Clerks for giving me their time.
As has been highlighted by both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, my amendments make a straightforward change to what happens when  the House votes on a motion to sanction a Member for their conduct. At the moment, a Member in that situation can vote on their own censure. Some of us might think that would never actually happen after an independent investigation has found a Member not only responsible for breaking the code of conduct but responsible for such an egregious breach that their privileges as a Member of this place should be curtailed as a result. We would like to think that there would be a sober reflection and making of amends in that situation but, sadly, we know that is not always the case.
It is less than a year since the censure of the former Member for North Shropshire. In those two votes, the former Member voted against his own suspension. As a result, I secured a Standing Order No. 24 emergency debate on standards, as an opportunity for the House to begin repairing the potential damage that affects us all in this place when such things happen.
It might be the former police officer in me—I have mentioned being a former police officer a few times today, as I spoke in the debate on the Public Order Bill—but it infuriates me that a Member can vote on their own suspension. It puzzles me, too. Surely, with the million rules and conventions in this place about what we can and cannot do, it should not have been allowed.
I had a look and spoke to the Clerks, who are much appreciated by all of us as a fount of knowledge. I found that, yes, there is a convention that, although Members can speak at the start of a debate on their conduct, the expectation is that they should subsequently withdraw, with the implication being that they should not return for the vote. There is a further convention that a Member can lodge a motion objecting to another Member’s participation in a vote in which they have a financial interest in the outcome, but I think you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is cumbersome and basically impossible with the rate of business and the number of MPs that we now have in this House.
Importantly, they are both currently conventions, not rules. Simply put, conventions last only as long as people choose to adhere to them. When people do not, it reflects on all of us. The Conservative party potentially had the most mud stuck to them as a result of what happened last year, but this is House business and it reflects on all of us to ensure that we uphold standards in this place.
My two amendments amend the Standing Orders to make these two conventions a rule. Members will not be able to vote on sanctions relating to proven breaches of the code of conduct by themselves. It is worth noting that the vast majority of cases considered by the Standards Commissioner are either not upheld or are rectified without further action, but there are always MPs under investigation, and I suspect there always will be. Although it has nothing to do with those individuals, it is important that we as a House are seen to be acting accordingly.
Where cases are more serious and there is a report to the Standards Committee, and where all the appropriate procedures, including those set down in the motion itself, have been followed and the recommendations reach the Floor of the House, we must ensure that due process is done and, most importantly, seen to be done.
Ironically, it was during Parliament Week last year that we saw the situation that the shadow Leader of the House mentioned, and it is almost Parliament Week again. When I talk to my constituents, they ask me about working here, fairness and transparency, and I genuinely think this is the best job I have ever had. It is an enormous privilege, and I think the vast majority of Members agree and want to act accordingly.
I want to be able to tell my constituents, and I feel very encouraged that I will be able to do so, that we have taken a long, good look at ourselves and that the vast majority of us who want to maintain those high standards and hold the respect of the people we serve did something to make things better.
I am keen that this is not seen to be a party political issue, and the hon. Members for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), all put their names to the amendments. For that reason, I hope very much that I will not need to press them to a vote. If there is an objection, I intend to do so this evening.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Committee on Standards, Chris Bryant.

Chris Bryant: I start by being slightly pernickety, which is to say that I am not a right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether the Lord President of the Council can do anything about that, but I note that she referred to me as such, for which I am grateful.
On a serious point, historically, we will probably be considered the standards Parliament, because standards have been such a prominent part of the politics of this whole Parliament. As a colleague of 649 of my closest friends, I feel quite painfully the fact that, in this Parliament, 16 Members have already been suspended for a day or more, or have withdrawn from the House before any investigation was completed. That puts this Parliament as having suspended more people than any Parliament in many decades. That, I suspect, is partly because we have put in place the ICGS, which is dealing with work that would previously have been swept under the carpet. Even in my own time in the House, these issues would have simply been dealt with by the Whips and somebody would have been either quietly paid off or told not to complain. I am really glad that that culture is changing, that people feel able to complain when they feel bullied or sexually harassed and that behaviours that were thought to be acceptable 15 or 20 years ago are no longer considered so in the House. We may have more of this before the end of this Parliament, and we just need to bear cognisance of that. Even if we look only at the code of conduct cases, we have ended up suspending more in this Parliament than for a very long time.
I had some very wealthy relatives. When I was young, they taught me that if a person ever inherited money, it was because it had been held in trust. As Members of Parliament, we inherit our seats—not normally hereditary seats, but in some cases they are—and we inherit the reputation of the House that came from previous  generations. It is important for us to hold that in trust and pass it on to the next generation of Members of Parliament burnished rather than tarnished. We will have to do a job of work throughout the rest of this Parliament to be able to do that effectively.
The system, I believe, also has to be fair to Members of Parliament. It is phenomenally complex and sometimes, in addition, complicated. An individual Member will be subject to rules of their own party, the ICGS rules, the code of conduct, the Electoral Commission, and the law of the land, and sometimes it is difficult for them to have all those things in their mind. That is why it is so important that the system for Members of Parliament is completely fair, embodies natural justice, and makes sure that the individual complainant—if there is a complainant—and the Member themselves are given an opportunity to put their case and for it to be heard fully. The court of public opinion is not often a fair place. It often jumps to conclusions and decides things far too rapidly. My worry is that, sometimes, our processes happen far too slowly, and that is not justice for either the complainant or the Member, especially as politics has a shelf life—we have elections, for example—and sometimes cases keep going for years, which is not fair on anybody’s mental health either.
Ever since I joined the Committee, I have always wanted us to have some formal process of appeal. I have argued that the system that we have had heretofore provides a sort of form of appeal: if the Commissioner finds against the Member, the Member is allowed a very full opportunity to make their case to the Committee in oral or written evidence. To be honest, it is better that we have a much clearer definition of the roles of the Commissioner and the Committee. That is what Sir Ernest Ryder has provided us with. He gave us a clean bill of health on how we have been operating in the past. He was quite clear in saying that there is not only one way of having a fair trial or hearing; there are many different ways. It might be an inquisitorial system such as we have, but it might be a confrontational system, or an adversarial system, as we have in a court of law. Of course, Committees of the House of Commons are not a court of law; they are fundamentally different. If we went down an adversarial route, the costs would increase dramatically and the length of proceedings would be very different. We have also always had a fundamental principle in the House that a Member speaks for themselves; if they cannot, then I would argue they have slightly lost the plot.

Andy Carter: I want to put on record my thanks to the lay members on the Committee. It is a unique Select Committee in Parliament and lay members—members of the public who are selected—play an important part. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the Committee is much stronger for having lay members sitting there alongside parliamentarians.

Chris Bryant: Indeed; that was the next point I was going to make. The hon. Gentleman is very good at doing that in Committee, incidentally, and persuading me of the view that I already hold, but that may just mean that we proceed very much on a consensual basis in the Committee and there is no partisan divide at all. Nor is there a divide between the lay members and the Member members.
There was a point at which people were arguing that MPs should not be involved at all in any of these processes, but I think that is wrong in relation to code of conduct cases. We often end up having a discussion about what casework really involves, or what an all-party parliamentary group does, and I think we make better decisions thereby. However, I do not think we could do that without the lay members and without their having a vote. The balance between the two, the seven lay members and the seven Members, is a good one, and it is sometimes a genuinely fascinating debate, with people offering different perspectives.
On the motions before the House, first, I hope that introducing a procedural protocol that lays out all the processes and what a Member can expect if they have to go through an investigation that ends up going all the way to the Committee will be helpful to all Members. We have laid all that out.
There has been some criticism in the past about whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who is an adviser to the Committee, should be present when the Committee is considering a memorandum and producing a report on an individual Member. We have decided that from now on—and we are already operating this—the Commissioner will not be present. If we have questions for the Commissioner, we will send them in writing and receive answers in writing, and that will also be available to the Member under consideration.
Secondly, as the Leader of the House has already said, we are introducing an appeal through the Independent Expert Panel. That is a formalised process, and some people may find that that process is stricter than the previous system, because Members cannot appeal just to have a regurgitation of the facts or the argument; there are clear reasons why someone might be able to proceed to appeal, and the appellate body, the IEP, might decide, “I’m sorry, that doesn’t really count. You just want to rehearse the arguments all over again.” Members may find that this is a stricter process, but it closely parallels the situation in many tribunal systems and Sir Ernest Ryder, who had responsibility for the tribunals system in England and Wales, has helped us to get to that position.
There is one other thing that the Leader of the House did not mention, but which I am grateful that the Government have included in the motions. Let us say that the Commissioner recommends that a Member has breached the rules and the Committee decides that there has been a breach of the rules and wants to impose a sanction. We will publish our report, in the way we have done, with the Member concerned getting an embargoed copy an hour before it is published. They will then have a period of time in which to decide whether to appeal. If they do, that goes to the Independent Expert Panel. However, at the end of that process, if the IEP upholds the Committee’s decision and the sanction, the motion should be put to the House forthwith—that is to say, without debate and without amendment, exactly like any other recommendation from the Independent Expert Panel in relation to independent complaints and grievance scheme issues. That makes for perfect clarity and simplicity.
I am grateful, in a way, that the Government have corrected our homework in two regards. The first is in relation to Members’ being allowed to inform their own staff. I think the Government have made that perfectly  sensible amendment, which was a sin of omission of ours rather than a sin of commission. The Leader of the House referred to the issue of members of the Committee recusing themselves, which is mentioned in the report and has been raised by some Members. If a member of the Committee has attended only one of the sessions at which an individual case is considered, should they be able to take part in the final decisions? There is nothing in Standing Orders that allows a Committee to prevent a member from taking part; in the end, it is a matter for the member’s own conscience. Broadly speaking, in most of our minds, someone who had not attended the individual Member’s oral evidence would not be able to give them a fair hearing. It is not in the motion—we are relaxed about that—but I wanted to give the House an indication of where we are going on that issue.
I thank both Sir Ernest Ryder and Sir Stephen Irwin. I feel a bit surrounded by knights of the realm sometimes, but it is good to have a new knight of the realm on the Committee—the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who joined us today. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain); her measure is perfectly sensible. The trouble with conventions and gentlemen’s agreements is that if there is no longer a gentleman on the other side of the agreement, it is no longer an agreement, so it makes perfect sense to put that on the face of the Bill.
The Leader of the House referred to some other issues. Obviously, I would have preferred it if we were dealing with the whole of our report. She referred to how she wants to achieve consensus. We on the Committee think that we have done so, we are open to discussion, but there are some issues I want to raise.
First, we want to ban the provision of paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to
“provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
That is self-evident. I think everybody supports it and I would like to make that the rule—it is not yet the rule.
We also think that Members who have second jobs, especially if they are ongoing, should have a contract saying what they and cannot do, because sometimes people will put in a contract, “You will provide contacts with Government on our behalf.” Well, Members cannot do that as that is, expressly, paid lobbying. We think they should be able to provide a contract; the Government disagree.
We want to clarify the serious wrong exemption, which Owen Paterson tried very aggressively and assertively to use as his excuse last year. It just did not wash, but it needs to be clearer for Members.
We want to clarify the paid lobbying rules, which would help out hon. Members a bit, because they are not clear in some areas. At the moment we draw a distinction between a Member “initiating” or “participating” in an approach to or a meeting with a Minister or an official. That is a completely false distinction and we need to get rid of it.
The one big difference I have with the Leader of the House is in relation to the registration of ministerial interests. I know the previous Leader of the House used the line about the constitutional principle of the separation of powers a lot. That is complete and utter baloney. It is nonsense. That phrase has carried on from the previous  Leader of the House but one, now I think about it. We do not have a separation of powers. By definition, Ministers are Members of this House. My anxiety is that ministerial offices quite often get the rules about the House wrong, and sometimes Ministers or Members leave staff to do the registration when it is the responsibility of Members. I hope we can get to a better place on that.
It is a fundamental principle that a member of public should be able to look online for a Member—whether they are Minister now, were a Minister a month or six months ago, or have not been a Minister at all this year—and see all the facts about their registrable financial interests, so as to be able to judge whether that Member was acting “without fear or favour”, or was acting with some other consideration in mind. It is, in a sense, even more important for a Minister than it is for others. If two Members, one an ordinary Member of Parliament and one a Minister, go to an air show, with the hospitality, the accommodation and so on paid for by an arms company—it might come to £3,500—it is probably more important for us to know that the Minister was given that hospitality, because it is the Minister who might be making decisions on procurement from that company. Transparency and equality between all Members is really important, and all the information needs to be searchable and findable. We need to do more work on that.
The Government need an adviser on the ministerial code, and I hope that that will come as soon possible. I am very fond of Lord Geidt, who is a magnificent man. I think he felt crushed by the events of the last of years. If we are to hold in trust the reputation of Parliament and of the whole of politics, we must get someone in place as soon as possible.
Like the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I thank the lay members of the Committee. I shall mention only two fully by name, because they have just left: Jane Burgess and Arun Midha have served out their time, and we are recruiting new lay members at the moment. We are one down, and we will need another three next year. Paul, Rita, Mehmuda, Vicky, Michael and Tammy do a magnificent job, and I am enormously grateful to all of them.

Allan Dorans: Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest in this matter as a member of both the Committee on Standards and the Committee on Privileges, appointed by this House in May 2021. I regard it as a privilege to serve on those Committees.
I start by agreeing with my friend the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) about the lay members. The Committee on Standards consists of 14 members, seven of whom are MPs and seven of whom are lay members appointed by the House of Commons Commission following an extensive and comprehensive open recruitment process. All seven lay members have extensive knowledge and experience of public life at a senior level and bring a fresh non-political and unbiased perspective to the work of the Committee. I commend and thank them for their commitment and contribution not only to the report we are debating tonight but to the other work undertaken by the Committee on Standards. The lay members are invaluable in enabling the Committee  to reach decisions that more accurately reflect the mood, consideration, interpretation and judgment of the country as a whole, rather than the narrow conclusions that might be reached by elected Members, with conflicting pressures and interests of their own in their Westminster role and in this echo chamber in which we operate.
The Committee’s recommendations followed our code of conduct review that started in 2020. The Committee took an extensive range of written and oral evidence and commissioned a survey of Members to draw up balanced and informed recommendations, and we were greatly assisted by independent advice from Sir Ernest Ryder, former Lord Justice of Appeal and Senior President of Tribunals for the United Kingdom. Sir Ernest carried out a review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system, and the Committee published his review in March 2022.
Sir Ernest concluded that the inquisitorial process for code of conduct cases is fair and compliant with article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial. Two of Sir Ernest’s principal recommendations were to create a single code of procedure, to be approved by the House, and to introduce a formal appeal system. The motions before the House today would implement those two central recommendations.
The Committee recommended that the Independent Expert Panel, which was established by the House in June 2020 to hear appeals and determine serious sanctions in bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct cases, should be the appeal body. If today’s motions are agreed, there will be an additional step in the process of investigating and adjudicating on breaches. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will continue to investigate allegations of breaches of the code. If the commissioner’s opinion is that the MP has breached the code and it cannot be rectified using her own powers, she will refer the case to the Committee for a decision; this is what already happens.
Once the Committee has published its report, the MP will then have 10 working days to lodge an appeal, if they wish to do so. The grounds are in line with the appeals grounds in Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases. The Independent Expert Panel would then publish the final outcome unless, in the case of a successful appeal, a case is remitted back to the Committee or Commissioner for fresh investigation or decision.
The Committee published its proposed procedural protocol in July 2022, which brings together material from the Commissioner’s information note, the current chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, and parts of the Committee’s own internal guidance into a single document that we hope is accessible and easy to understand. The protocol also sets out the new process for appeals.
I welcome the Government bringing forward today’s motions and I hope that the new protocol and appeals process will give hon. Members and the public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our standards system. I also sincerely hope that the Government will bring forward motions before too long to allow the House to debate and decide on the proposed new code of conduct and guide to the rules, and the important changes that the Committee is suggesting.
The SNP and I support the reform of practices to ensure that hon. Members of this Parliament have a fair process when allegations have been made against them.  We also welcome the motion and proposals to ensure that standards in this House are strengthened, and we look forward to engaging on the proposed reforms. We also welcome the Government bringing forward the motions to implement the Committee’s recommendations on appeals and to approve the proposed new procedural protocol.
In addition, we recommend that consideration be given to training and awareness among hon. Members to provide them with information on the proposed changes. An incredible amount of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards regarding the motions being brought before the House today. I also lend my support and that of the SNP to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).

Penny Mordaunt: Once again, I thank the Committee on Standards and its pernickety Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—we are very grateful to him for being so. As I set out when I opened the debate, we are here to endorse these grounds for appeal. It is the Government’s view that the change will bring welcome consistency to our procedures. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the many thoughtful contributions to today’s debate and for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
I am keen to make progress on all these issues. This particular issue was something that we could do straightaway, and I thought it important to do so, but we will be looking at what more we can do. I mentioned the issue of ministerial declarations: whichever system, whether it is the one advocated by the Chair or the one that I am advocating, requires Whitehall to get its act together—bluntly. That is what I have been focused on and we have acted on that very swiftly.

Jamie Stone: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), it might be helpful for all hon. Members to look at the way that the Scottish Parliament does things. Everything is out in the open. For the amusement of right hon. and hon. Members present, if they look back at my declaration of interests, they will see that it is down in black and white on paper that Mr Mohamed Al-Fayed gave me a side of smoked salmon valued at £30 and a book valued at £20—it is all still there to be seen today. I point out that no questions were asked on his behalf by me in the Scottish Parliament.

Penny Mordaunt: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has clarified that there is nothing fishy about his declarations—[Interruption.] It is late.

Chris Bryant: I am not an unreasonable man when it comes to these issues. The key thing is getting transparency. I am more anxious about getting the rest of the Committee on Standards’ changes to the code of conduct in place; I would love us to be able to say that we will start the new code of conduct on 1 January next year. We will need to do some training and preparation for hon. Members so that they fully understand the new rules, but I hope that the Leader of the House will help us to get to that place.

Penny Mordaunt: I shall certainly do so. There will be other issues that the House will wish to debate and discuss, and there will be areas on which we disagree—for example, we disagree on the issue of descriptors—but we must proceed on a consensus basis.
I would like to add that I think a lot of the issues we have grappled with in this place—whether about security and the integrity of our democracy, the wellbeing of Members of this House or Ministers, or safeguarding and behavioural issues—are not solely owned by the House, but cross over into political parties, as was mentioned, and the Government. Even the chairman of the party in government does not have access to security information in his own Department, the Cabinet Office, about a permissible donor, for example. In my tenure as Leader of the House, I am keen to find a forum in which we can bring together those constituent parts—party, Government and the House of Commons—to really tackle some of these issues, which are very difficult, even if we are doing really well, to grip in isolation. If we are striving for excellence, I think that is a requirement.
I again thank all Members for their contribution. The Government look forward to further debate on this matter to ensure that our standards system commands the confidence of both the public and Members of this House.
Question put and agreed to.

Standing Orders Etc. (Committee on Standards, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Independent Export Panel)

Motion made, and Question proposed (Order, this day),
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards) be amended as follows:
At end, insert new paragraphs as follows:
“() The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to communicate its evidence and any other information in its possession to a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel in respect of a Code of Conduct case that has been appealed to the Panel.
() The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee (or a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel where it recommends a sanction following an appeal) in respect of a Code of Conduct case forthwith; such a motion may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed.”
(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended as follows:
(a) In sub-paragraph (4)(a), delete “, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose”;
(b) In sub-paragraph (4)(b), delete “, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable.” and insert “;”;
(c) At end of paragraph (4), insert “(c) in any case relating to the rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the breach involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent—
where the Member concerned has, by agreement, taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required.”; and
(d) Delete paragraphs (6)–(11).
(3) Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) be amended to read as follows:
(1) There shall be a Panel, to be known as the Independent Expert Panel, whose members shall be appointed by the House in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members).
(2) The Panel shall consist of eight members, of whom a quorum shall be four.
(3) The functions of the Panel shall be—
(a) to determine the appropriate sanction in Independent Complainants and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) cases referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards;
(b) to hear appeals against the decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in respect of ICGS cases involving Members of this House;
(c) to hear appeals against a sanction imposed under paragraph (a);
(d) to report from time to time, through the Clerk of the House, on the operation of the ICGS as it relates to Members of this House;
(e) To hear appeals against the decisions of the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. 149(1)(b) in relation to individual cases under the Code of Conduct;
(f) To consider any case of non-compliance by a Member of this House with a sanction imposed under sub-paragraph (a) or any other recommendation made in a report by a sub-panel in relation to an ICGS case; and to determine the appropriate sanction.
(4) The Panel may elect its own Chair.
(5) The responsibilities of the Chair shall include—
(a) ensuring that the Panel and its sub-panels comply with the provisions of the relevant resolutions and standing orders of this House, and with the Procedural Protocol for Code of Conduct cases;
(b) the appointment of sub-panels to consider individual cases;
(c) co-ordinating the work of the Panel with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in relation to ICGS cases and the Committee on Standards in relation to Code of Conduct cases;
(d) referring any report from a sub-panel which determines, or confirms on appeal, a sanction that can only be imposed by the House, and any other report from a sub-panel that the Chair considers should be published, to the Clerk of the House who shall lay it upon the Table of the House;
(e) informing the parties concerned of the outcome of any other ICGS case reported to the Chair by a sub-panel, and ensuring compliance as appropriate with sanctions determined or recommendations made by a sub-panel;
(f) establishing the procedure for an appeal against the findings or determination of a sub-panel in cases referred under (3)(a) above;
(g) ensuring publication of an Annual Report on the functioning of the Panel and its sub-panels by referring the report to the Clerk of the House for laying on the Table.
(6) The Panel and any sub-panel shall have power—
(a) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(b) to order the attendance of any Member before it and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before it;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Panel’s order of reference.
(4) Standing Order No. 150B (Independent Expert Panel: Sub-panels) be amended to read as follows:
(1) Cases referred to the Independent Expert Panel under Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) shall be considered by a sub-panel appointed under paragraph (5)(b) of that order.
(2) A sub-panel shall consist of three members of the Panel and shall have a quorum of three.
(3) Sub-panels shall sit in private.
(4) A sub-panel may request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to conduct further investigations in respect of an ICGS case referred to it and may specify the matters to be covered in that investigation.
(5) In respect of a Code of Conduct case a sub-panel may request that the Committee on Standards or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards share specific documents or records in their possession relating to the sub-panel’s inquiries.
(6) In respect of each case referred to it, a sub-panel shall make a report of its findings to the Chair of the Panel.
(7) Where an appeal is made against a finding or determination of a sanction by a sub-panel in an ICGS case, a new sub-panel shall be established to hear that appeal. No member shall be eligible to hear an appeal against the decision of a sub-panel on which they have served.
(5) Standing Order No. 150E (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) be amended as follows:
In paragraph (2), after “Order” insert, “in relation to an ICGS case, or where a sub-panel has determined a sanction different to that recommended by the Committee on Standards in a Code of Conduct case,”.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Amendments made: (a), at the end of paragraph (1) relating to Standing Order No 149, insert:
“; and no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”—(Wendy Chamberlain.)
Amendment (b), at the end of paragraph (4) relating to Standing Order 150B, insert new paragraph
“(4A) Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS) be amended as follows:
At end, add ‘(5) No Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.’”—(Wendy Chamberlain.)
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards) be amended as follows:
At end, insert new paragraphs as follows:
“() The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to communicate its evidence and any other information in its possession to a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel in respect of a Code of Conduct case that has been appealed to the Panel.
() The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion to implement a sanction recommended by the Committee (or a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel where it recommends a sanction following an appeal) in respect of a Code of Conduct case forthwith; such a motion may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed; and no Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.”
(2) Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) be amended as follows:
(a) In sub-paragraph (4)(a), delete “, and the Member concerned has taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required within any procedure approved by the Committee for this purpose”;
(b) In sub-paragraph (4)(b), delete “, if the Commissioner has with the agreement of the Member concerned referred the matter to the relevant Officer of the House for the purpose of securing appropriate financial reimbursement, and the Member has made such reimbursement within such period of time as the Commissioner considers reasonable.” and insert “;”;
(c) At end of paragraph (4), insert “(c) in any case relating to the rules for All-Party Parliamentary Groups if it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the breach involved is minor, or the failure was inadvertent—
where the Member concerned has, by agreement, taken such action by way of rectification as the Commissioner may have required.”; and
(d) Delete paragraphs (6)–(11).
(3) Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) be amended to read as follows:
(1) There shall be a Panel, to be known as the Independent Expert Panel, whose members shall be appointed by the House in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members).
(2) The Panel shall consist of eight members, of whom a quorum shall be four.
(3) The functions of the Panel shall be—
(a) to determine the appropriate sanction in Independent Complainants and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) cases referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards;
(b) to hear appeals against the decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in respect of ICGS cases involving Members of this House;
(c) to hear appeals against a sanction imposed under paragraph (a);
(d) to report from time to time, through the Clerk of the House, on the operation of the ICGS as it relates to Members of this House;
(e) To hear appeals against the decisions of the Committee on Standards under Standing Order No. 149(1)(b) in relation to individual cases under the Code of Conduct;
(f) To consider any case of non-compliance by a Member of this House with a sanction imposed under sub-paragraph (a) or any other recommendation made in a report by a sub-panel in relation to an ICGS case; and to determine the appropriate sanction.
(4) The Panel may elect its own Chair.
(5) The responsibilities of the Chair shall include—
(a) ensuring that the Panel and its sub-panels comply with the provisions of the relevant resolutions and standing orders of this House, and with the Procedural Protocol for Code of Conduct cases;
(b) the appointment of sub-panels to consider individual cases;
(c) co-ordinating the work of the Panel with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in relation to ICGS cases and the Committee on Standards in relation to Code of Conduct cases;
(d) referring any report from a sub-panel which determines, or confirms on appeal, a sanction that can only be imposed by the House, and any other report from a sub-panel that the Chair considers should be published, to the Clerk of the House who shall lay it upon the Table of the House;
(e) informing the parties concerned of the outcome of any other ICGS case reported to the Chair by a sub-panel, and ensuring compliance as appropriate with sanctions determined or recommendations made by a sub-panel;
(f) establishing the procedure for an appeal against the findings or determination of a sub-panel in cases referred under (3)(a) above;
(g) ensuring publication of an Annual Report on the functioning of the Panel and its sub-panels by referring the report to the Clerk of the House for laying on the Table.
(6) The Panel and any sub-panel shall have power—
(a) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(b) to order the attendance of any Member before it and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before it;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Panel’s order of reference.
(4) Standing Order No. 150B (Independent Expert Panel: Sub-panels) be amended to read as follows:
(1) Cases referred to the Independent Expert Panel under Standing Order No. 150A (Independent Expert Panel) shall be considered by a sub-panel appointed under paragraph (5)(b) of that order.
(2) A sub-panel shall consist of three members of the Panel and shall have a quorum of three.
(3) Sub-panels shall sit in private.
(4) A sub-panel may request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to conduct further investigations in respect of an ICGS case referred to it and may specify the matters to be covered in that investigation.
(5) Standing Order No. 150D (Motions consequent on the ICGS) be amended as follows:
At end, add ‘(5) No Member shall be eligible to participate in any division on such a motion where it relates to their own conduct.’
(6) In respect of a Code of Conduct case a sub-panel may request that the Committee on Standards or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards share specific documents or records in their possession relating to the sub-panel’s inquiries.
(7) In respect of each case referred to it, a sub-panel shall make a report of its findings to the Chair of the Panel.
(8) Where an appeal is made against a finding or determination of a sanction by a sub-panel in an ICGS case, a new sub-panel shall be established to hear that appeal. No member shall be eligible to hear an appeal against the decision of a sub-panel on which they have served.
(5) Standing Order No. 150E (IEP recommendations for sanctions and the Recall of MPs Act 2015) be amended as follows:
In paragraph (2), after “Order” insert, “in relation to an ICGS case, or where a sub-panel has determined a sanction different to that recommended by the Committee on Standards in a Code of Conduct case,”.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (Appointment)

Charles Walker: I beg to move,
That Daniel Greenberg be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission, HC 694, dated 6 September 2022.
I will try to be brief. On 20 July, the House of Commons Commission nominated Daniel Greenberg as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the motion is in my name as the spokesperson for the Commission.
I will just provide a little bit of history, if that is all right. In 2003, the House decided that the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be held for a non-renewable term of five years. The duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are set out in Standing Orders. For the benefit of those interested, and I know many are, they include: maintaining the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and other registers established by the House; advising the Committee on Standards and individual MPs on the interpretation of the rules; monitoring the operation of the code and registers, and making recommendations to the Committee on Standards; independently investigating complaints against MPs, or matters where they have evidence there may have been a breach of the code of conduct—a theatrical pause because this is a long list—and overseeing investigations into complaints against MPs under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme if the case goes to a full investigation, acting as the decision-making body on them, and either determining the appropriate sanction or referring more serious cases to the Independent Expert Panel to determine sanction.
The appointment of the current commissioner ends on 31 December and the House needs to appoint a new commissioner on the basis that it is a single five-year term with no option for renewal. Kathryn Stone, the retiring commissioner, has held her post for nearly five years and was the sixth office holder. On behalf of the House of Commons and the Commission, I thank her for her service to this House. It has not been easy all the time; in fact, it is a very difficult job. She has absolutely done it diligently and to the very best of her abilities.
The Commission, which I am on, has been responsible for running the recruitment campaign, as it has in the past—this is something the Commission always does. It engaged recruitment consultants to support the search and that included a national advertising campaign. I have to say that finding willing volunteers was difficult. This is not a hugely attractive job, for obvious reasons. Talented people still put their names forward but not in the same number as have in the past.
Following the shortlisting, there was a two-stage recruitment process. The first included two external panel members and both myself and the Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is sitting opposite. A second panel afterwards was drawn from the Commission, including the Speaker, the former Leader of the House and the current shadow Leader. Full details are in the Commission’s report, for anyone who would like to read that.
Daniel Greenberg is a lawyer. He currently serves as counsel for domestic legislation. He was parliamentary counsel for 20 years and counsel, Office of Speaker’s Counsel, House of Commons from 2010 to 2016. The Commission is confident that he has the necessary experience and skills for the role, and that he will bring to it the authority, independence, discretion and strength of character required.
I have known Daniel at a distance since I have been a Member of Parliament; he has appeared before a couple of Select Committees that I have chaired, notably the Procedure Committee. He is a man of formidable intelligence and we are very, very lucky to have him. All that remains to be said is that the new post will commence on 1 January, a bank holiday, so I expect he will be getting down to business shortly after that date.

Allan Dorans: I again declare an interest in this matter as a member of the Commons Standards Committee.
The Scottish National party welcomes this appointment. Elected Members of this Parliament are rightly expected to meet the high standards in public life as defined by the Nolan principles and expected to adhere to the House of Commons code of conduct and related rules of the House. The role of the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is an absolutely crucial appointment in maintaining public trust that Members of Parliament adhere to these principles, and to ensure that all MPs have confidence that any allegations of breaches of the MPs’ code of conduct are investigated fairly, impartially and free of political bias.
I understand that Mr Greenberg has been through a rigorous and open recruitment and selection process and is recommended for appointment by the House of Commons Commission. From what I know of Mr Greenberg’s previous experience, I am confident that he will make an excellent independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and I support the motion.
May I pay tribute to the outgoing Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, who leaves this position at the end of her five-year tenure in December? The role of commissioner is a difficult and challenging position which Ms Stone has carried out with utmost fairness, professionalism and integrity. Both Parliament and the public are indebted to her for her service and wish her well in her new role as the chair of the Bar Standards Board.

Chris Bryant: Me again. It would be fair to say that the search company found it quite difficult to get lots of good candidates to apply. In fact, significantly fewer applied than five years ago. I asked it why that was and it said, “Well, you’ve only got to read the newspapers to see why.” Kathryn Stone has faced pretty ferocious, sustained attacks in the media, including from quite a number of colleagues in the House. There have been times when I have felt such admiration for her because she has managed not to soldier on—that is not quite the kind of person she is—but to keep going with clarity and without any sense of bearing a grudge or anything like that. However, it must have been tough for her. That has made it difficult for us to find candidates.
When we went through the process, I felt that only one person was really appointable. Although the Commission had asked us to take forward two names, the second name dropped out. All that being said, we have an absolute corker to take on the job.

Jessica Morden: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: Daniel Greenberg is quite phenomenal; my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) knows him from his advice to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He has advised the Standards Committee several times, and done so with considerable wit, rapier intelligence and sometimes rather frighteningly.
More importantly—I do not think that I am breaking a confidence—we were advised by those who did the initial interviews that he might be a little shy about providing his opinions. I do not think that is the issue at all. He was absolutely magnificent at interview; I was giving him 10 out of 10 on every single one of the key criteria on experiences and abilities needed to fulfil the role. I am certain that he will do a splendid job for the House.
I do, however, want the House to embrace the appointment. Part of what I said earlier about upholding the standards of the House and maintaining its reputation for future generations involves not attacking those whom we have entrusted with managing that job. Sometimes, he may need additional financial and staffing resources to be able to do the job properly.
I pay tribute to Kathryn Stone for the magnificent way in which she has done her job—I hope that we will have an opportunity to do that properly before she departs later in the year—and the phenomenal members of her team. In particular, I have worked closely with Helen Reid, who is clear, concise and fair. Kathryn has managed to create a team that I think she will hand on in very good nick to Daniel Greenberg when he starts on 1 January.
There is just one area where I hope that Daniel will be able to work clearly. I have some sneaking concerns about the operation of the ICGS. Sometimes, the quality of people who have been employed to do the early investigations has not been up to scratch. Because the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a sideline to that role, it is important that Daniel can work closely with whoever will be running the ICGS in future. Having said all of that, Daniel is a magnificent appointment and I am glad that the Commission has agreed with the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and myself.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Deputy Leader of the House.

Jessica Morden: May I agree with what everyone else has said? Like other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the outgoing commissioner, Kathryn Stone. We thank her very much for her work and extend our best wishes to her for whatever roles she continues in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it has been a difficult role at a difficult time—that was alluded to earlier in the debate—but she has done it really well. Standards are  vital to us. They exist to hold us all to account. Everybody who works in Parliament, but particularly hon. Members, should be held to the highest standards and we thank her for all she has done in that role.
I welcome the new commissioner, Daniel Greenberg. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, was involved in the interview process. She told me that he was an absolutely exceptional candidate and that his application was of the highest standard. As a member for many years of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I know that Daniel served the Committee with distinction for over 12 years, including six years advising the Committee as counsel for domestic legislation. On behalf of our small but dedicated Committee, I thank him for all the work he has done on our Committee.
The work of the JCSI perhaps does not have the highest profile in Parliament, but it is an important Committee that does the job of considering statutory instruments. That work is of the utmost importance. Daniel’s role as leading counsel advising the Committee, working with the excellent team we have, has been much appreciated, as has his vigorous attention to detail, fair-mindedness and, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said, formidable intellect, as well as his humour and lightness of touch. That thoroughness will be an asset to us in Parliament in his new role. Those of us who listened to his excellent contributions on “Thought for the Day” on Radio 4—essential listening for those of us on the JCSI—are also well aware of his thoughtfulness and empathy, qualities he will undoubtedly bring to his work as commissioner, so we welcome him.

Penny Mordaunt: I would like to begin by endorsing the thanks and appreciation that hon. Members have given for the work undertaken by Kathryn Stone since her appointment in 2017. It has been a tough shift for her, but she has helped to develop the standards system. She played a key role in the implementation of the ICGS and helped the Independent Expert Panel in establishing its working practices and procedures following its establishment in  2020. I have not personally been involved in the recruitment process for her successor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) sat on the final selection panel with three other members of the Commission. I would like to express my gratitude to all those who were involved in the selection panels and assessing the candidates. The whole House owes them gratitude.
It is vital that we all have confidence in the standards system and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has a key role to play in that. The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the information contained in the Commission report have certainly reassured me that Daniel Greenberg possesses the necessary skills and experience to carry out the role extremely effectively and build confidence in the system. It is therefore my hope that the House will approve this nomination and that we can welcome him and wish him well in his new role.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you. I certainly recall that, when I was a Minister, there was always a huge sigh of relief when Daniel came in to give us advice. I am sure he will do a magnificent job.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 and 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Armorial Bearings, Ensigns and Flags

That the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

Health Services

That the draft Health and Social Care Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.—(Darren Henry.)
Question agreed to.

Unfinished Housing Developments: Consumer Protection

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Darren Henry.)

Helen Morgan: I thank the Minister for his attendance and response this evening. I secured this debate following a number of instances in my constituency in which the buyers of new homes have been left to pick up the pieces when critical infrastructure is not completed by the developer.
Let me tell the House first about The Brambles in Whitchurch. That is a development of 14 houses, built by developer Sherwood Homes Ltd in 2016 on land that had already been granted planning permission for development by Shropshire Council. It was a condition of the planning permission that the road, footpath and drainage should all be complete before the occupation of any houses occurred. However, despite those things never happening, building completion certificates were issued for all the properties and they were subsequently sold and inhabited. Unfortunately for the residents, the drainage system failed, leading on some days to raw sewage backing up in their gardens. Sherwood Homes Ltd had not taken out the section 104 agreement required in the planning permission, and not only was the arrangement dysfunctional, but the connection to the Welsh Water sewerage network was illegal, and neither were the road, lighting and footpath completed to an acceptable standard.
In October 2019, a creditor of Sherwood Homes Ltd, which appears to have shared some of the same directors, petitioned for it to be wound up and an order for insolvency was made by the court in December 2019. As a result, Shropshire Council could not take planning enforcement action against Sherwood Homes Ltd, and the residents of The Brambles, who are the successors in title to the private company established to manage the development, have been the subject of the enforcement process. They have been required to accept five-figure charges on their properties in order to rectify the issue of connecting the drainage to Welsh Water’s network. Indeed, the saga has also cost the rest of Shropshire’s taxpayers a considerable amount of time, as council officers have expended time and effort to attempt to rectify the situation.
Shropshire Council believes that the developer’s failure to complete the necessary works before the first house was occupied should have been established by conveyancing solicitors, and the lessons to be learned from this episode are, “buyer beware.” It may be right, but few residents have been able to establish that principle with their solicitors and would not have the resources to begin legal proceedings against them. I believe that some of the home buyers took up the offer of conveyancing services facilitated by the very developer who left them high and dry, raising serious concerns over a potential conflict of interest.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Back home in Northern Ireland—I say this to inform the Minister as well—we have a very clear system whereby each developer must put a bond on the property. Therefore, should there be  any difficulty in relation to the footpaths and roads not being finished, or if the streetlights are not done and the sewerage fails, that bond can be used for those repairs. Does the hon. Lady feel that the methodology used in Northern Ireland may settle the problems that she refers to, and that the Government and the Minister should look at that option?

Helen Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible intervention; I will make a very similar suggestion in my speech.
The leader of the council declined my request to undertake a case review of the sequence of events that led to the situation at The Brambles to understand whether the council could have prevented the situation at any point as it evolved. As the law stands, it would appear that she is right. The Building Safety Act 2022 does not cover issues relating beyond the house itself, and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman declined to consider the case, arguing that:
“Caselaw has established that where a council issues a completion certificate and the work is later found to be substandard, liability for any defects rests with those who commissioned the work and those who carried it out. We cannot therefore hold the Council responsible for substandard work by the developer and we could not achieve any worthwhile outcome for”—
my constituent by investigating the complaint.
This is a very serious case—the most serious case I have seen in North Shropshire—but there are numerous instances in which roads have not been completed to a standard suitable for adoption, streetlights are not installed, shared areas are not landscaped as per planning permission and, in some cases, even the plot sizes vary from the original plan.
I can provide further examples. A development at Isherwoods Way in Wem has been without streetlights and a surfaced road for 10 years; although the situation is about to be resolved, it is not quite there yet. On the west side of my constituency, a site that I cannot name because legal proceedings are under way features an unadopted sewerage system that has not been completed to the required standard. A development in Ellesmere was left without an adopted road and open space when the developing company collapsed. The situation is only being resolved now that the development has been purchased by a major national house builder. The developer of another site in Wem has applied for insolvency despite the road being unadopted, the open spaces not having been landscaped and concerns having been expressed by residents about the water drainage system.
The cost to residents of these sites is not only financial. Untold distress and emotional strain have been caused and an enormous amount of precious time has been spent on resolving the situation. At a recent constituency surgery, one resident told me, “I’m a truck driver. I don’t have time to become an expert on planning control.” His neighbour, a construction worker, described the strain of worrying about everything that could go wrong with the drainage system, and about the cost involved in digging up the road to rectify the faults.

John Spellar: I have a similar problem in Cranford Street in Smethwick. I find it utterly deplorable that Severn Trent, which is making hundreds of millions and whose chief executive is paid millions, will not take over any responsibility for the sewage that is backing up  into people’s homes. People have bought the home of their dreams and are now finding that it has turned into a nightmare.

Helen Morgan: I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have had some productive discussions with Severn Trent on the issue and am about to propose a solution that I hope will help to rectify the situation.
It has become apparent that residents are tied into an impossible situation. They no longer want to live in their homes, but realistically they cannot sell them until the defects are rectified. There are also wider financial ramifications because if any resident defaults on their mortgage, a bank will not be able to sell the property to recover its investment.
The other common theme emerging from all these developments is that homebuyers will be expected to contribute to the costs of maintaining shared areas via a management company to which the title for the shared areas has passed. These companies typically pass on the management cost to the residents at zero profit. However, the ones that I have investigated then subcontract the work to a profit-making company. I am sure that the House will not be surprised to learn that in many such arrangements the subcontractor is related in some way to the original developer.
The companies can charge uncapped amounts indefinitely to the homebuyer, in what is known as a fleecehold—I am aware that several hon. Members have raised the plight of fleeceholders on previous occasions. The management company can be used not only to pass on to the homebuyer the financial responsibility for completing the development, but to extort money for years to come, often for substandard management services. I am aware that the Government have indicated that they will legislate to control such management charges. I urge the Minister not only to commit to a date for such legislation, but to ensure that protections are included to cover previously unfinished developments.
To tackle the issue up front, however, I propose a different course of action. I believe that it is possible for a water company or a local council to obtain a financial bond when a section 104 or section 106 agreement is put in place, such that when critical infrastructure is not completed, funds are still available to complete the work. In addition, there are mechanisms such as section 38 agreements incorporating financial bonds that can be used to ensure that roads are of an adoptable standard. Having spoken to colleagues, I believe that some councils, such as Oxfordshire County Council, use financial bonds for that purpose and to avoid the distressing situations that I have described. I have not been able to establish why that is not standard practice for all councils.
I urge the Minister to consider using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to require councils to take a step involving a financial bond before planning conditions are discharged, so that unsuspecting homebuyers are not left with unmanageable costs if their developer goes bust before the site is completed. The principle has already been established in the Government: National Highways requires a bond from local authorities if they propose works affecting the strategic road network, so that significant disruption is avoided if the works are not completed. I am concerned to learn that the changes  proposed to the Bill would reduce councils’ ability to use section 106 agreements for smaller developments and would remove current powers to protect homeowners.
The rationale for planning deregulation is that it will enable house building targets to be met by removing barriers to completion, but I would argue that, certainly in the case of North Shropshire, it is not necessary. The evidence does not show that planning regulations are behind slow rates of house building. Shropshire’s local plan contains a target of 30,500 new homes by 2038, but there are already 18,000 planning applications on which consideration has not yet commenced. The current build rate of just under 1,900 houses a year does not suggest that planning permission is the issue holding things up.
I appreciate that requiring a financial bond from new house builders might deter smaller companies from entering the market, but first I question whether homebuyers and council tax payers should be taking on the risk posed by a financially unviable housebuilder; and secondly, it should be possible to find an alternative, such as an investment bond, to combat that risk.
I am extremely concerned about the fact that councils lack the tools they need to ensure that the buyers of new-build homes do not fall victim to rogue developers, and the fact that the effectiveness of the tools they do have may be reduced by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree to consider making the use of financial bonds as part of section 106 or similar agreements a required practice for councils and water companies, to protect both homebuyers and councils’ own taxpayers from high-risk housing developers.
If the Minister rejects such a solution, however, will he agree to meet me and other stakeholders, such as the Local Government Association, to formulate a practical mechanism to prevent the distress and financial hardship caused by unfinished housing developments? Homebuyers, councils and the wider community need to be confident that they will not be left to the pick up the pieces when a developer fails to deliver. The owners of The Brambles are victims of a rogue developer, and we should act to ensure that their experience is not repeated elsewhere.

Lee Rowley: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing the debate, on making her case so cogently and, in particular, on talking about the constituents on whose individual circumstances, as she outlined, this issue has had such an impact.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contribution, as ever, to an Adjournment debate, and for highlighting the elements of the Northern Ireland approach, which is something for us all to consider. I also thank the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) for the information that he provided. He has written to the Department as well; I am looking at that correspondence and will get back to him as soon as I am able to do so.
As has been clear tonight, the hon. Lady speaks for many Members on both sides of the House in arguing for better protection for people in unfinished housing developments. I cannot comment on individual cases because I do not have all the details in front of me, and  obviously there are two sides to every story and different circumstances in each case. However, I would say to people who have been adversely affected by inappropriate practices, whether in North Shropshire or elsewhere, that that is not acceptable; I am sorry they have had that experience, and I hope they can seek redress and correction in any way that is available to them.
I think everyone in the House would agree that we need more homes, but we need them in the right places and we need them when they are constructed. That is often a controversial and difficult process, but when they are constructed, we need them to be of a standard that enables people to live in them. They have to work, and they have to work within the local community that those people are seeking to join. The debate is timely in enabling us to highlight the latter point, because in a minority of instances that might not be the case.
For too many people, at least initially, the dream of home ownership does not live up to their hopes, because they are forced into resolving faults in their new build homes that are not of their making. The delays in getting those issues resolved often leave homeowners out of pocket, in financial stress or, as the hon. Lady suggested, having to engage in lengthy battles with developers to put things right—if the developer concerned is still in place. As a constituency MP, I have had some experience of that in North East Derbyshire, albeit with a developer who did in the end put things right—but it took a while for that to be done, which caused many residents in a number of villages, but one in particular, a significant amount of stress. So on a personal level, from a constituency perspective, I understand the point that the hon. Lady has made.
The Government are unequivocal in stating that all new housing developments should be finished on time and to a standard that buyers expect. If things go wrong, as they sometimes do—we all know that processes are not perfect; the developer sometimes has problems and challenges and we should be reasonable in expecting that—the buyer should be treated fairly and promptly. I would like to say a little bit about the action we are taking to make sure that this is the norm in all new housing developments, wherever they are in the country. This breaks roughly into three different elements. The first is the length of time that it can often take for houses to be developed in the first place. The second involves the infrastructure commitments that the hon. Lady has highlighted, and the third relates to the quality of work in the developments when they are concluded and people begin to live in them. There are often concerns about the quality at that point.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his helpful response, and again I want to use it to be constructive. Back home there are many developers who sign up to the Master Builders Association agreement. As members of that organisation, they are accountable for the finish of the houses. If at the end the houses are not finished to the standard they should be, the owner has the right to take a complaint to the Master Builders Association, which will ensure that the work is completed to standard. I ask in a constructive way: is that something that could be done here?

Lee Rowley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I would be interested in hearing more. He will appreciate that I am seven weeks into post and I am  still learning, but I would be genuinely interested in understanding the Northern Irish approach, given the information that he has highlighted this evening. Where there are things that are done well, we should be willing as a Government to look at those to see where we can take best practice and apply it on a broader level. I want to understand in more detail what is happening in Northern Ireland, and I will be happy to do that separately with him and his colleagues, if that would be helpful. I would be keen to understand the particular difference that he thinks comes from the Northern Irish approach, and I am always happy to find out more about particular instances and whether they would work on a broader scale, should that be helpful.

Jamie Stone: Could I perhaps look at the issue the other way round? As in Northern Ireland, housing and planning are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet as a Member of this place, I get stuff about housing all the time. Looking at it the other way around, as and when His Majesty’s Government develop clever ways of doing things with housing, taking on board the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, I would be grateful if those new methods could at least be offered to the Scottish Government in case they could glean something that might improve the housing issues north of the border.

Lee Rowley: The United Kingdom Government are always keen to indicate to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government where we might be able to work together and where we think that elements of policy might work for Scotland as well as they work elsewhere in the Union. Occasionally, the Scottish Government are not that keen to listen to His Majesty’s Government, but perhaps, given the hopeful outbreak of consensus on the desire to make progress, that will not occur on this particular subject. I am happy to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly and properly makes.

John Spellar: I think we need to look at two separate, although related, problems. One is about the individual build quality of the houses. The other is about the infrastructure of the estate, which is certainly a problem that I and neighbouring Members of Parliament in the west midlands conurbation are finding. We have to find a way through that. In addition, if a developer goes bankrupt, the titles revert to the Crown Estate, so does not the Crown Estate have an opportunity to play a proactive role here? At the moment it seems to be playing a fairly passive role.

Lee Rowley: I will come to those two points, because I agree there are different elements that we need to consider and unpack. I would be happy to discuss the second point with the right hon. Gentleman in more detail, should he wish.
On completing new housing developments—I accept the hon. Member for North Shropshire made a broader point about further down the chain—the Government are clear that developments should be built out as soon as possible once planning permission is granted. The frustration of local communities where that does not occur is completely understandable. We expect developers and local authorities to work closely together to make this happen.
The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is in Committee today, will increase transparency on build-out, helping councils and residents to better understand what they can expect from development proposals and putting in place sanctions should the homebuilder fall short. Of course, there are examples where developers will need to vary their approach to building and constructing properties, and of course timeframes will both elongate and reduce as part of that process, but in general we are keen to see that when development is granted permission, often through difficult and sometimes controversial processes, and the clock starts ticking, the development should get moving and conclude as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire rightly highlighted infrastructure. Taking roads as an example—she mentioned a number of examples—when a new development is granted planning permission, councils can currently use section 106 planning obligations, as she indicated, to secure a commitment from developers to construct roads to a standard capable of being adopted by the local highway authority. It is up to developers and local planning authorities to agree on specifics such as timescales and funding, which may include the provision of a bond. This is currently a local decision and, notwithstanding the difficulty she rightly highlighted—she made a constructive suggestion on potential compulsion in this area—there are going to be different circumstances in different instances.
I encourage councils to use bonds where they think it is appropriate. Equally, I do not know whether we want to be so prescriptive as to mandate that from the centre, as there may be instances where it is neither appropriate nor necessary. Hundreds of thousands of houses are built each year in very different parts of the country, so we have to have regard to the fact there are different circumstances. None the less, I accept the premise of what the hon. Lady indicates and, where good practice exists—she indicated the good practice in Oxfordshire, and it also happens in Derbyshire—I encourage councils to use it, where appropriate and reasonable.

Helen Morgan: If compulsion is not appropriate, what about disseminating best practice to all councils in England to encourage them to use this mechanism, where appropriate, to avoid the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and I have described? That would be a positive way forward to prevent this happening in future.

Lee Rowley: Within the bounds of localism, and without an individual Minister directing councils to do so, I think it is reasonable to indicate that, where possible, reasonable and proportionate, and where councils think it is appropriate, they should consider using bonds, which are a helpful lever and tool to be used where possible, while accepting that individual local authorities may have different reasons and different views on either using them or not using them. Ultimately, I will leave it to the discretion of individual local authorities to determine the appropriateness of that utility.
Returning to the point about roads, the Government believe it should be made clear to potential purchasers what the arrangements are for the maintenance of roads. Section 38 agreements facilitate the adoption of such  roads as highways maintained by the public purse. It is certainly possible for local authorities to adopt streets and roads. Ultimately, though, that is a decision that is taken in relation to how these estates are created and how local authorities want to approach ensuring that they have highways that are at a standard that they can then maintain.
Although I recognise, as has been indicated, that this does not work in a number of instances, if we can balance the appropriateness of localism—of making sure that local areas have the ability to vary how they approach this—while also ensuring that there is a general usage of the tools that are available, I hope that will be reasonable and proportionate.
The other element of the discussion is effectively around the quality of what is delivered at the end of the process when people move in—or by the time they move in. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has also provided local planning authorities with tools to enforce requirements with strong penalties for non-compliance. Again, we encourage councils to use them where possible, and, again, through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill we are seeking to strengthen those measures.
I should add that when residents have a complaint about the local planning and highways authority that has not been adequately resolved, they may be able to complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. I know that, in at least one incident, as the hon. Lady said, the residents of North Shropshire tried to do that. Obviously, the ombudsman is independent, but it is worth reiterating that it is there to redress issues, and I hope that anybody watching this debate who has a similar concern will consider its usage should that be appropriate.
On the matter of delays to completion, warranties and the actual quality of new homes themselves, I know of the problems that new home buyers face regularly and we do not underestimate the detrimental impact that this has. Most new-build home contracts typically have a “short-stop” date, which is an estimated completion date, and a “long-stop” date, which is the date by which a home must be completed in the contract. The rights and responsibilities of the homebuyer and developer should be set out in that contract, including the circumstances in which a deposit and other money is returned.
There are other routes to redress, which we are strengthening, and I will come to those in a moment, because they offer alternatives that the hon. Lady may wish to consider. The status quo currently is that most new-build homes are issued with a 10-year new-build warranty. Home buyers may also be able to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service about their insurance cover.
Within the first two years of most warranties home buyers may be able to seek to resolve issues with their new homes through that warranty provider. If the new home is covered by one of the consumer codes, they may also be able to help resolve the issues that residents unfortunately face.
Even with those options available to home buyers, we recognise that the system is not in a perfect place. That is why the Government have committed to taking further steps to improve consumer redress. Through the Building Safety Act 2022, we have included a provision that contains  a statutory new homes ombudsman scheme, which will place greater accountability on developers and make it easier and simpler for new home buyers to seek redress when things go wrong, which perhaps will move us closer to the Northern Ireland model in terms of outcomes.
In the meantime, and as we consider the next steps for the statutory scheme, the independent New Homes Quality Board has progressed work to set up the voluntary New Homes Ombudsman Service, which will launch shortly. My second visit was to see the launch of a New Homes Quality Board and to see the first developers to be brought onto that scheme. I went to Solihull a couple of weeks ago, and I am grateful to the chief executive for meeting me. It is an important step forward. The scheme is voluntary at the moment, but, equally, that voluntarism gives the opportunity for home buyers to see the different ways in which developers are engaging with that system, and I hope that most developers will in the end engage with that system.
The hon. Lady talked about leasehold at the end of her speech and I just want to dwell on that for a few seconds. We acknowledge that there are practices that  are not where they need to be within the leasehold sector, and the Government and previous Ministers have given commitments that we will reform leasehold. We remain of the view that that is what should be done. Although I cannot give the hon. Lady the date she seeks, I am personally committed to trying to take the matter forward and I hope I will be able, with my colleagues, to give further information in fairly short order on the process for that.
In conclusion, this is an important area of policy, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady and all those who have contributed to the debate tonight for the opportunity to talk about it. It is important to note that there are processes already in place that homeowners should use if they are in the unfortunate place described by some people in North Shropshire, which I know is also the case elsewhere. They should seek to use those and seek to—
House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).